BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16678 of 2011 KUMARESAN : PETITIONER/ACCUSED-7 Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASARIPALLAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. (CR.NO.600/2011) : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. S.XAVIER RAJINI Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : M/S. L.GEORGE PAUL ANTO Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.7 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C, in Crime Number 600 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has been ranked as A-7 and the earlier complaint given by the de-facto complainant was closed as mistake of fact. Subsequently, it was revived and the petitioner is in no way connected with the said case, where the offences said to have been committed by the accused persons are only under Sections 147, 148, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. He would further submit that in this case, no injury has been caused against the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he requests this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the threatening made by the petitioner at the instigation of the first accused is very serious. In view of that the de facto complainant could not go to his shop to do his business and therefore, anticipatory bail need not be granted to the petitioner. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the case was originally closed as mistake of fact. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Subsequently it was revived and investigation is carried on. He would further submit that no injury has been caused by the petitioner on the de facto complainant and the petitioner along with the other accused said to have committed an offence under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C against the defacto complainant. He would further submit that if for any reasons, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, suitable conditions may be imposed. 6. Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that no injury has been caused by the petitioner on the defacto complainant and his persons. However considering the apprehension of the defaco complainant that he could not do his business because of the threatening made by the petitioner at the instigation of the first accused, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with the following stringent conditions: i) Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Nagercoil and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition, ii) that the petitioner shall appear before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks. iii) The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. iv) The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 20/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1, NAGERCOIL. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ASARIPALLAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. +1 CC to M/S. S.XAVIER RAJINI Advocate SR.No.44556 +1 CC to M/S. L.GEORGE PAUL ANTO Advocate SR.No.44581 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16678 of 2011 NSV/21.12.11/2P/7C Date :20/12/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/