1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.06.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN Crl.R.C.(MD)No.345 of 2011 1. Rajesh 2. Kumaresan 3. Pattukani ... Petitioners Vs. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Tisaiyanvilai Police Station, Tisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli District in Crime No.272 of 2010. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in Cr.M.P.No.406 of 2011 dated 18.03.2011. For Petitioners : M/s. S.Muthal Raj For Respondent : Mr.P.Kandasamy, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) ORDER The revision petitioners are the accused in Crime No.272 of 2010 registered by the respondent for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 147, 294(b) I.P.C. and Sections 3 and 4 of TNPPDL Act and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and Section 323 I.P.C. The petitioners were arrested and they moved an application for bail before this Court and this Court ordered their release subject to the condition that they should report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. Subsequently, the said condition was modified to the effect that they should report before the said Court once in a month i.e., on the first working day of every month at 5.00 p.m. Thereafter, the petitioners filed Crl.M.P.No.406 of 2011 praying for relaxation of the said condition expressing their difficulties and hardship and that they are complying the said condition for more than four months. The said application was dismissed by the Court of Mahila Court, Tirunelveli on 18.03.2011, on the ground that the investigation of the case is still pending. The revision petitioners aggrieved by the said order, preferred this revision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners on instructions would submit that subsequently compromise has been reached between them and the de-facto complainant. Therefore, there is no necessity on the part of the prosecution to insist the petitioners to appear before the lower Court once in a month. 3. Per contra, Mr.P.Kandasamy, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that since the investigation of the case is still pending, the petitioners have to report before the Court once in a month to know about their whereabouts so as to enable the prosecution to procure them in the event of the positive final report. 4. The Court carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 5. Since the petitioners are complying with the conditions regularly without any default and also the fact that the investigation of the case is still pending, this Court is of the view that the modification of the condition ordered in Crl.M.P.No.1670 of 2010 dated 16.11.2010 requires further modification. Accordingly, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the petitioners to report before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri once in two months i.e., on the first working day at 5.00 p.m. until further orders. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (C.O.) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri. 3. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Tisaiyanvilai Police Station, Tisaiyanvilai, Tirunelveli District 4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1cc to Mr.Na.Palaniyandi, Advocate SR.No.17377 akv akm/14.06.11 /2p-6c/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.345 of 2011 07.06.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/