BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S. TAMILVANAN CRL OP(MD) No.14055 of 2011 1. KOTTAI MUTHU 2. RAJENDRAN 3. PONNAIAH 4. SUBBIAH 5. BALAMURUGAN 6. ARJUNAN 7. MARI 8. GOPVINDARASU 9. MURUGESAN 10. KARTHEESWARAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 to 10 Vs 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE R.S.MANGALAM POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.143 OF 2011 ) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2. V.PANNEER SELVAM ...RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT (Amended as per the order of this Hon'ble Court made in MP.(MD).1/11 in Crl.OP(MD)No.14055/11 vide its order dt.11.11.2011 by STJ) For Petitioner : M/S. D.S.HAROON RASHEED Advocate For Respondent 1 : K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Respondent 2 : MR.T.SEKAR, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner Nos.1 to 10 who are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.145 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police, have come forward with the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons. He further submitted that the injured was discharged from the hospital hence requested the court to consider the anticipatory bail application favourably. 4. Learned counsel for the second respondent/intervenor submitted that the second petitioner attacked the defacto complainant by iron rod and caused head injury, immediately he was taken to the hospital. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ discharge summary was produced, The discharge summary issued by the Meenakshi Mission Hospital shows that the injured Mr.Panneer Selvam, a practicing Lawyer was admitted as inpatient for about four days due to the head injury sustained by him. 5. Merely because, the injured was discharged from the hospital the Court cannot grant the anticipatory bail since there are materials papers to show that deadly weapon was used for causing injury apart from sticks. In a serious condition, the injured was hospitalized and the discharge summary shows that grievous injury was sustained by the defacto complainant. 6. In the aforesaid circumstances I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail would not meet the ends of justice. Though the occurrence had happened due to local body election dispute, it is clear that deadly weapon was used by the accused and grievous injury was sustained by the defacto complainant in the occurrence hence the petitioners/accused are not entitled to get anticipatory bail In the result the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. sd/- 17/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE R.S.MANGALAM POLICE STATION RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. D.S.HAROON RASHEED Advocate SR.No.40178 +1CC TO M/S.T.SEKAR, Advocate, Sr.No.40232 GH : 22.11.2011 : 2p/5c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14055 of 2011 Date :17/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/