CRL OP(MD)/17995/2017 of T.MOHAMMED BILALUDEEN @ BILAL Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.17995 of 2017

1 T.MOHAMMED BILALUDEEN @ BILAL

2 T.SYED RAVIYA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.A2 and A4

Vs

STATE THROUGH,THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIKKAL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM.

IN CR.NO. 102/2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioners : M/S.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.102 of 2017 on the file of the respondentpolice, the petitioners have come forward with this petition seekinganticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondentpolice.

3.The case of the prosecution is that due to civil dispute,the petitioners along with the other accused have scolded thedefacto complainant in filthy language and also attacked him withhands, which resulted in registration of the case.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that thepetitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.

5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that thehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/injured has been discharged from the hospital and it is a case incounter.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andtaking note of the fact that injured has been discharged from thehospital and also the fact that it is a case in counter, this Courtis of the view that custodial interrogation of these petitioners isnot necessary at this stage. Therefore, this Court is inclined togrant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released onbail in the event of their arrest or appearance, within a periodof fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,before the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, subject to thefollowing conditions:

(i) each of the petitioner shall execute a bond fora sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with twosureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of therespondent police or the police officer who intends toarrest or to the satisfaction of the Magistrateconcerned;

(ii)the petitioners shall report before therespondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for two weeks andthereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidenceor witness either during investigation or trial;

(iv) the petitioners shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.

(v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions,the Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to takeappropriate action against the petitioner in accordancewith law as if the conditions have been imposed and thepetitioner released on bail by the Magistrate/Trial Courthimself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inP.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

TO

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUDUKULATHUR, 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIKKAL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM. SIKKAL POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI MADURAI

+1. CC to M/S.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN Advocate SR.No.37125