CRL OP(MD)/16136/2020 of Remisiyas @ Remigius Vs The Inspector of Police on 30 December 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

Remisiyas @ Remigius ... Petitioner/Sole Accused

Vs

The State rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Town North Police Station, Dindigul District.

(In Crime No.2714/2020). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Karuna.V, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.Seenivasan,

Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Section 438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER :-

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.2714 of 2020 on the file ofthe respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the offences punishable under sections 448,294(b), 323 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.2714 of 2020 on thefile of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has givenhis mobile phone for service in the defacto complainant's shop andat that time, there was a wordy quarrel between the petitioner andthe defacto complainant, in which, the petitioner said to haveabused the defacto complainant by using filthy language and attackedthe defacto complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

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

3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andthe learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for therespondent.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submittedthat the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed anyoffence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falselyimplicated in this case. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearingfor the respondent police submitted that no one has sustainedinjury.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the fact that due to cell phone repairing, theoccurrence said to have taken place and no one has sustainedinjured, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioner with certain conditions.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bailin the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of twoweeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, on condition that thepetitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Tenthousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to thesatisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, whointends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrateconcerned and on further condition that:

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix theirphotographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and theMagistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Bookto ensure their identity; (b)the petitioner shall report before the respondent policedaily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, asand when required for interrogation.

(c)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial; (d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigationor trial; (e)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 the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIRcan be registered under Section 229-A IPC. sd/- 30/12/2020

/ TRUE COPY /

/ /2021

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

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correctcopy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigantconcerned.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,

DINDIGUL.

2. -DO- THROUGH: THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.