CRL OP(MD)/18037/2017 of V.VIJAY, 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

V.VIJAY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN)

Vs

STATE REPRESENTED BY

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANYAKUMARI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.569 OF 2017.... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : Mr.THANGARAJA, Advocate for Mr.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN 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 offence punishable under Sections 500 and 505 of IPC r/wSection 69 of Information Technology Act in Crime No.569 of 2017 onthe file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come forwardwith this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainantone Kanagaraj, AIADMK Advocate, had lodged a complaint stating thatthe accused have made morphing of the Chief Minister shirt packet asif it contained the photo of the Prime Minister and hence therespondent police registered a case.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that thepetitioner is innocent and is only a group admin of a Whatapp Groupand only based on the confession of A1 and A2, the petitioner hasbeen falsely implicated in this case. Accordingly, he prays foranticipatory bail.

5.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit thatthe petitioner has no previous cases. He further submitted thathttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/actually, there are 16 group admins arrayed as accused and thepetitioner is one of the 16 group admins and the respondent police found that accused no.1 has committed the mischief.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andtaking note of the fact that petitioner has no previous case and heis one of the 16 group admins alleged to have involved in this caseand even according to the respondent police A1 has committed themischief, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released onbail in the event of his arrest or appearance, within a period offifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kanykumari, on his executinga bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) withtwo sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of therespondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or tothe satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned and on furthercondition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondentpolice daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafteras and when required for interrogation.

[b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.

[d] on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by theMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO IKANYAKUMARI

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2 -do- thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATEKANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

3

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KANYAKUMARI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

+1. CC to Mr.G.KARUPPASAMY PANDIAN Advocate SR.No.12.