1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twelfth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10867 of 2011 VELLAIYAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE REP.BY ITS THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CR.NO.337 OF 2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. A.SHAJAHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/accused NO.3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 505(i)(b) of IPC in Crime NO.337 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was charged under Sections 294(b), 505(1)(b) of IPC and the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted against two persons and during the investigation only, on the basis and during the investigation only, on the basis of the statement of PW1, the petitioner's name has been included and A1 and A2 published the news against the de- facto complainant, the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence and he apprehend for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that on the basis of the statement of PW1, the petitioner's name has been included and he fairly conceded that in FIR, the petitioner's name has not been mentioned and investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 4.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, and considering the fact that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 3.6.2011 and the petitioner's name has not been included in the FIR and during the investigation, he was implicated and even though, the petitioner was not arrested neither he interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Natham, and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days form the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 12/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NATHAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NATHAM POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. A.SHAJAHAN Advocate SR.No.30985 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10867 of 2011 Date :12/09/2011 TR : 14.09.2011: 2p/6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/