CRL OP(MD)/23462/2013 of DR. J. RAJESHKUMAR 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 Thirteen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH

CRL OP(MD) No.23462 of 2013

DR. J. RAJESHKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ SOLE ACCUSED

Vs

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL TOWN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DT, CRIME NO.693/2013

... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S)

For Petitioner : M/S.R.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Balasubramani Government Advocate ( Crl. Side)

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

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The Petitioner herein who arrayed as the sole accused apprehendsarrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged Commission ofoffences punishable under sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC in CrimeNo.693 of 2013, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the Petitioner who is aVeterinary Doctor in Veterinary Dispensary, Muthazhugupatti came to theOffice of the Animal Husbandry Department for joining the duty, wherein,the defacto complaint who is an Assistant, refused to receive the same andhence the petitioner scolded the defacto complaint and threatened her andhence the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that thePetitioner the present complaint has been lodged falsely against thePetitioner and the facts narrated by the prosecution side are all falseand hence prays for anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that thePetitioner and defacto complainant are Government servants and there isquarrel between them due to official work.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and thelearned Government Advocate(crl. Side) appearing for the State and perusedthe materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, thisCourt is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the eventhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial MagistrateNO.II, Dindigul and on executing a personal 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 conditionthat the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at11.00 A.M for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when requiredfor interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditionstipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

7. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made readyfailing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/-

30/12/2013

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar

TO

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

DINDIGUL TOWN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S.R.GOWRISHANKAR Advocate SR.No.64405

TS/31.12.2013/2P-6C