CRL OP(MD)/23475/2013 of RAMAIAH THEVAR Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 December 2013

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

Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand ThirteenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

CRL OP(MD) No.23475 of 2013

1 RAMAIAH THEVAR

2 VALLIAMMAI

3 DAMAYANTHI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3

Vs

THE STATE REP BYTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANAYAPATTI POLICE STATION,PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.95 OF 2013) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : M/S.K.BAALASUNDHARAM AdvocateFor Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANIAN

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

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

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who are arrayed as accused No.1 to 3apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for thealleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 355and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.95 of 2013, and hence seeks anticipatorybail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that when the defactocomplainant went to her Aunty's house, the Petitioners havequestioned the defacto complainant about her presence and attackedher and abused her in filthy language and hence the presentcomplaint was lodged by the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that thethird petitioner's husband namely Pandichelvam made a complaintagainst the defacto complainant which was registered in Crime No.94of 2013 and as a counter case, the defacto complainant has lodgedthe present false complaint against them and therefore they seek forhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/anticipatory bail.

4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that itis a case in counter and no one sustained injury in the aboveoccurrence and there is only a wordy quarrel between the Petitionersand defacto complainant and further the Petitioners and the defactocomplainant are close relatives..

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the fact that the Petitioners and the defactocomplainant are close relatives and that no one sustained any injuryin the above said occurrence, this Court is inclined to enlarge thepetitioners on anticipatory bail.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released onbail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumayam and on executing a bond fora sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two suretieseach for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrateconcerned and on further condition that the third petitioner shallappear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m for a periodof two weeks and thereafter as and when required. Considering theage of the Petitioners 1 and 2, they shall appear before therespondent police for interrogation as and when required by them.The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated underSection 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistratewithin a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copymade ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail standsdismissed.

30/12/2013

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

TO

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMAYAM

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PANAYAPATTI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.+1. CC to M/S.K.BAALASUNDHARAM Advocate SR.No.64436RL/6 C- 2/1/2014