Thiru. R. SAKTHIVEL, B.A., B.L., PRINCIPAL DIS - District Court

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,COIMBATORE.

Present: Thiru. R. SAKTHIVEL, B.A., B.L.,PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE.

Thursday, this the 29 th day of July, 2021

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2566/2021

1. Palanisamy Gounder (Age 72 years) S/o.Appusamy Gounder

2. Thirunavukarasu (Age 39 years) S/o.Palanisamy … Petitioners / Accused

/vs/State, through the Inspector of Police,Vadakkipalayam Police StationCrime No:245/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Pollachi.)

The petition filed on behalf of the petitioners to release them on anticipatorybail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. S.Sampath, A.Vikram, J.Srihari and S.Jaisurya, Advocates forthe petitioners / Accused and Tvl. K.Shanmugam and R.Anbuchelvan, Advocatesfor the defacto complainant in [C.M.P.No.2591/2021] and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj,Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.245/2021 of VadakkipalayamPolice Station, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondentpolice, for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, they havefiled this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is present.

The learned counsel appearing for the Intervening petitioner is present.

The learned Public Prosecutor is present.

Heard on both sides. The learned counsel appearing for the Interveningpetitioner has submitted that the defacto complainant is again admitted in thehospital and taking treatment as in-patient. The petitioner and the defactocomplainant are brothers and there are some civil dispute pending betweenthem. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court does incline to ordernot to arrest the petitioners till 09-08-2021. In the meantime, the petitionersshall appear before the respondent police when called for enquiry.

Call on 09-08-2021. Till such time, the respondent police is directed notto arrest the petitioners.

This order is dictated to steno-typist, typed by her, corrected and pronouncedby me via email on this 29th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE.

CC to (sent via email):

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Pollachi.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Vadakkipalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.4. Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused persons.5. Counsels for the defacto complainant.


Present: Thiru R. SAKTHIVEL, B.A., B.L.,PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, COIMBATORE.



Suresh Kumar (Age 34 years)S/o.Thangaraj … Petitioner / Accused No.1

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceThudiyalur Police Station, Crime No.701/2021Offence: u/s.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.)

The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to release him on bail u/s.439 ofCr.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. S.Saravanakumar, R.Muruganandam and P.Vigneshbabu,Advocates for the petitioner / Accused No.1 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, PublicProsecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mailand upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.701/2021 of Thudiyalur PoliceStation, for the alleged offence u/s.5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, he hasfiled this petition, seeking grant of bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court andsubmitted that this petitioner is no way connected with the offence and he is an

innocent and he is the sole bread winner of his family and he never indulged anyactivities as alleged and he is in judicial custody from 30-06-2021 and prayed torelease the petitioner on bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happened on30-06-2021 and the same was reported to the respondent police on the same day.There are two accused in this case. The petitioner is arrayed as A-1. On the dateof occurrence, the respondent police received secret information about theexplosive substances. On receipt of that information, the respondent police hadgone to Narasimmanaickenpalayam, Poochiyur and conducted search. In the earlymorning hours, they found that two persons came there and they searchedsomething. On suspicion, the respondent police enquired them and it came toknow that on 29-06-2021, they dig the land and hide six numbers of country bombsin the patta land in various places in order to kill the wild animals. Thereafter therespondent police recovered five numbers of country bombs. The remaining onecountry bomb was blasted and due to which, one country dog was died. In thiscase, investigation is not yet completed.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Thepetitioner has been remanded to judicial custody for the offence u/s.5 of ExplosiveSubstances Act, 1908. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 30-06-2021.According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated in this case. Thelearned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the accused persons dig the land andhide six numbers of country bombs in the patta land in various places in order tokill the wild animals. Thereafter the respondent police recovered five numbers ofcountry bombs. The remaining one country bomb was blasted and due to which,one country dog was died. In this case, investigation is not yet completed.

5. After considering all the above said aspects, considering the nature ofoffence, period of incarceration, and also considering the facts and circumstancesof the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to thefollowing conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond forRs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the JudicialMagistrate No.1, Coimbatore.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police, dailytwice i.e., daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

(iii) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with theinvestigation agency as and when required.

(v) Violation of any of the condition imposed by this Court will result incancellation of the bail.

(vi) In case of the condition No.(i) to (iv) are violated, it is open to theinvestigating officer to file appropriate application before the learned JudicialMagistrate for cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,


CC to ( sent via email):

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.3. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, Thudiyalur Police Station, Coimbatore District.5. Counsels for the Petitioner / Accused.





1. S.Rijiesh (Age 24 years) S/o.Selvam

2. Samuvel (Age 24 years) S/o.Jayaraman … Petitioners / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceSinganallur Police Station, Crime No.513/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. S.Sampath, S.Tamilselvi and A.Ramla Banu, Advocates forthe petitioners / Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

This petitioners are the accused in Crime No.513/2021 of Singanallur PoliceStation, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police,for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC, they have filed thispetition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05-07-2021, the defactocomplainant, his friend Karthik and other friends joined together and consumedalcohol. At that time, the accused persons came there and picked up quarrel withthe defacto complainant and abused the defacto complainant by using filthylanguage and assaulted the defacto complainant by using knife and caused headinjury to the defacto complainant and in addition to that they threatened the defactocomplainant with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on the date ofoccurrence, there arose some wordy quarrel between the accused persons and thedefacto complainant and others. In that process, the 2nd petitioner herein sustainedinjury and he preferred complaint against the defacto complainant and a case hasbeen registered in Crime No.512/2021. The petitioners are innocent and they havebeen falsely implicated in this case and they never indulged any activities asalleged and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happened on05-07-2021 and the same was reported to the respondent police on 06-07-2021.The defacto complainant and one Karthik are friends. The defacto complainant,Karthik and some of their friends are used to drink liquor in the house of Karthik.On 05-07-2021, the defacto complainant, Karthik and some other friends wereconsumed alcohol in Karthik’s house. At that time, four persons came and pickedup quarrel with the defacto complainant. Both parties quarreled each other. In thatprocess, one of the accused took a knife and assaulted the defacto complainant andcaused head injury to him. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted thatexcept the present case, yet another case is pending against the 2nd petitioner.Investigation is still going on.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Therespondent police registered the case against the petitioners and others for theoffence u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(2) of IPC. The alleged occurrence happened dueto the wordy quarrel between the parties. At the time of occurrence, both partiesare in drunken mood. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in thiscase, the accused persons assaulted the defacto complainant by using knife and hesustained head injury. Investigation is not yet completed. Except the present case,yet another case is pending against the 2nd petitioner.

6. After considering all the above said aspects, considering the nature ofoffence, having regard to the nature of injury, previous antecedents of the 2nd

petitioner, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

Hence, this petition is dismissed.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL., PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

COIMBATORE. CC to ( sent via email):

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore District.4. Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused persons.





Sabari (Age 30 years)S/o.Ravikumar … Petitioner / Accused No.1

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceMadukkarai Police Station, Crime No.380/2021Offence: u/s.395 r/w Sec. 397 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. S.Sampath, J.Sri Hari, A.Ramla Banu, Advocates for thepetitioner / Accused No.1 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, representedfor State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.380/2021 of Madukkarai PoliceStation, for the alleged offence u/s.395 r/w Sec. 397 of IPC, he has filed this petition,seeking grant of bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested to adjourn thispetition to some other day.


At the request of the petitioner, this petition is adjourned to

02-08-2021.

Call on 02-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Madukkarai Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Prathap (Age 27 years) (A-3)S/o.Karuppusamy … Petitioner / Accused No.3

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceE-3, Saravanampatti Police Station, Crime No.608/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. D.Baskar and R.Muthamil Rajan, Advocates for the petitioner /Accused No.3 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.608/2021 of E-3,SaravanampattiPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.294(b), 341, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC, he hasfiled this petition, seeking grant of bail.


The learned Public Prosecutor requested to adjourn this petition to some otherday.

At the request of the Public Prosecutor, this petition is adjourned to

02-08-2021.

Call on 02-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, E-3, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





1. S.A.Sampath @ Shanmugam (Age 39 years) S/o.Ayyasamy

2. S.Manoharan (Age 53 years) S/o.Subramaniam … Petitioners / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Podanur Police Station, Crime No.740/2021Offence: u/s.447 and 506(i) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)

The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to release him on anticipatorybail u/s.438 of Cr.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. K.Navaneethakrishnan, G.S.Ramesh Kumar and A.TeenaRoselin, Advocates for the petitioners / Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj,Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted viae-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced thefollowing:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioners are the accused in Crime No.740/2021 of Podanur PoliceStation, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police,for the alleged offences u/s.447 and 506(i) of IPC, they have filed this petition,seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners trespassed into thedefacto complainant’s uncle’s shop and broken the lock and in addition to that theythreatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the 1 st petitionerand the uncle of the defacto complainant are close friends. The 2nd petitioner is thefriend of the 1st petitioner. The defacto complainant’s uncle is the owner of thebuilding. The 1st petitioner is the lessee. In the year 2014, they entered into a leaseagreement and a sum of Rs.5.0 lakhs was fixed as lease amount. The 1st petitioneris doing wholesale vegetable and real estate business in the said shop. On 20-07-2017, the defacto complainant’s uncle borrowed a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- from the1st petitioner as hand loan and agreed to pay the said amount with interest at therate of 18% per annum. In that effect, the defacto complainant’s uncle executed apromissory note in favour of the 1st petitioner. Further he issued a cheque to the 1st

petitioner. But the defacto complainant’s uncle failed to pay the amount. Hence,the 1st petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.305/2020 as well as a cheque case inC.C.No.479/2019. Both cases are pending. Since, the 1st petitioner is not vacatedthe shop, the defacto complainant’s uncle had locked the shop by using anotherlock. The 1st petitioner had gone and enquired him. At that time, he threatened the1st petitioner. As a result of which, the 1st petitioner preferred a complaint againstthe defacto complainant’s uncle. Due to which, due to the inducement given by thedefacto complainant’s uncle, the defacto complainant preferred the presentcomplaint against the petitioners stating false allegations. The petitioners areinnocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case and prayed for grant ofanticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happened on04-07-2021 and the same was reported to the respondent police on 07-07-2021.The defacto complainant’s uncle is having a property. The defacto complainant’suncle leased out the said property to the 1st petitioner. The defacto complainant’suncle is now taking treatment in a hospital at Chennai. The tenant agreement wasterminated in the year 2019. While so, on the date of occurrence, the accusedpersons trespassed into the defacto complainant’s uncle’s property and broken thelock and in addition to that they threatened the defacto complainant with direconsequences and thereby tried to take possession of the property voluntarily. Inthis case, investigation is still pending.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. The 1st

petitioner is the lessee. The defacto complainant’s uncle is the owner of theproperty. They had some civil dispute and one civil suit and a case u/s.138 of NI

Act are also pending between the parties. On going through the offences registeredagainst the petitioners, Sec.506(i) IPC alone non-bailable. Investigation is goingon.

6. Considering the submissions made by either side, having regard to thenature of offence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to thefollowing conditions:-

(i) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners.

(ii) The petitioners shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- each in the eventof their arrest or the petitioners shall surrender before the Judicial Magis -trate, Madukkarai, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- each within 15 daysfrom the date of this order.

(iii) The petitioners shall produce two sureties likesum each to the valueof Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate,Madukkarai, within 15 days from the date of this order.

(iv) The petitioners are directed to sign before the respondent police dailytwice i.e., daily at 10.00 a.m., and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

(v) The petitioners or their men shall not tamper the evidence.

(vi) The petitioners shall not abscond and they shall co-operate with the investi-gation agency as and when required.

(vii) In case of the condition No.(ii) to (vi) are violated, it is open to theinvestigating officer to file appropriate application before the learned JudicialMagistrate for cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in P.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Podanur Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused persons.




CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2738/2021 and 2739/2021

Naveen Kumar (Age 29 years) S/o.Aruchamy … Petitioner / Owner of the property

C.M.P.No.2738/2021 Keerthana (Age 26 years)D/o.Aruchamy … Petitioner / Owner of the property

C.M.P.No.2739/2021/vs/

State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Annur Police Station, Crime No.196/2021Offence: u/s.379 of IPC and Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation Act)1957, 36(A) MMDR Rules IPC Act.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.)

These two petitions are filed u/s.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C., seeking to passan order to return of ASHOK LEYLAND LTD goods carrier.

These two petitions are coming on this day for final hearing before this Courtin the presence of Thiru. K.Shanmugam, Advocate for the petitioners / owners ofthe properties, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

COMMON ORDER

These two petitions are filed u/s.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, seeking to pass anorder to return of properties i.e., ASHOK LEYLAND LTD goods carrier No.TN39 BR 0871, Chassis No.MBIG3HYC7FEASI051, Engine No.FAEZ410909,Make: 1616XL FRH Yellow Colour and bearing No. TN 38 CX 5967, ChassisNo.BM1022112598, Engine No.4H32012120162, Make: CATERPILLAR

INDIA PRIVATE LIMI Yellow and Black Colour as interim custody to thepetitioners.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is present.

The learned Public Prosecutor is present and he prays time to file counter.

In the interest of justice, these two petitions are adjourned to03-08-2021 for filing counter by Public Prosecutor.

Call on 03-08-2021.

This Common order is dictated to steno-typist, typed by her, corrected andpronounced by me via email on this 29th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Mettupalayam.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Government Pleader, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, Annur Police Station, Coimbatore District.5. Counsel for the Petitioner / Owner of the property.





Shankar @ Shankaraia (Age 19 years) S/o.Karanthamalai … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,D-3, Podhanur (Crime) Police Station, Crime No.1828/2020.Offence: u/s.451, 452, 392, 394, 397 and 506(ii) of IPC..Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed on him inC.M.P.No.1429/2021, dated 01-04-2021.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. C.Selvakumar, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused andThiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing thepetition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition which is already imposed onhim by this Court in C.M.P.No.1429/2021, dated 01-04-2021.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that bail wasgranted to the petitioner by this Court on 05-03-2021, in C.M.P.No..873/2021, with acondition to sign before the respondent police daily twice at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.,until further orders. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition in C.M.P.No.1429/2021,praying to relax the condition totally. This Court allowed the said petition on 01-04-2021. While allowing the said petition, this Court directed the petitioner to signbefore the respondent police weekly twice i.e., on every Monday and Friday at 10.00

a.m., until further orders. As per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner hasbeen complying with the condition from 02-04-2021 to 07-05-2021, without anyviolation. The learned counsel further submitted that due to COVID-19 lockdown thepetitioner could not comply the condition properly. Now, the petitioner prays to relaxthe condition totally.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has no objection to relax the condition totally.

4. Considering the above said aspects, having regard to the period ofcompliance, nature of offence and also considering the other circumstances of thecase, this Court is inclined to relax the condition totally which is alreadyimposed on the petitioner. Further the petitioner is directed to appear before theCourt concerned on all the hearing dates without fail.



COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Podhanur (Crime) Police Station, Coimbatore District.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





R.Saravanan (Age 41 years) (A-2)S/o.Ramasamy … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Crime No.241/2021.Offence: u/s.4(1)(a) of TNP Act and Sec.506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.)

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed on her inC.M.P.No.1837/2021, dated 26-04-2021.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. V.Suresh, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused No.2 and Thiru.M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petitionsubmitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronouncedthe following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.


2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted thatanticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, by this Court, on 26-04-2021, inC.M.P. No.1837/2021, with a condition to sign before respondent police station, dailyat 10.00 a.m., until further orders. As per the order passed by this Court, thepetitioner has been complying with the condition from 28-04-2021, without anyviolation. Now, the petitioner prays to relax the condition totally.





COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S.Puram, Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.




CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.2764/2021 and 2695/2021

Dhanasekar @ Dana S/o.Palanisamy … Petitioner in C.M.P.No.2764/2021 / Accused No.1

Prasanth.B (Age 27 years)S/o.Balan … Petitioner in C.M.P.No.2695/2021 / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceSinganallur Police Station, Crime No.503/2021Offence: u/s.341, 392, 397, 506(2) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore.)

These two petitions were filed on behalf of the petitioners in the respectivepetitions to release them on bail u/s.439 of Cr.P.C.

These two petitions were coming on this day for final hearing before this Courtin the presence of Tvl. A.Rajan and P.Moorthy, Advocate for the petitioner inC.M.P.No.2764/2021, Tvl. N.Ayyappan and A.Maharajan, Advocate for thepetitioner in C.M.P.No.2695/2021, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

COMMON ORDER

Heard on both side.

These two petitioners are the accused in Crime No.503/2021 of SinganallurPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.341, 392, 397, 506(2) of IPC, they havefiled this petition, seeking grant of bail.


The learned Public Prosecutor prays time and requested to adjourn this petitionto some other day.

At the request of the Public Prosecutor, these two petitions areadjourned to 02-08-2021.

Call on 02-08-2021.

This common order is dictated to steno-typist, typed by her, corrected andpronounced by me via email on this 29th day of July, 2021.

Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.3, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Singanallur Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioners / Accused persons.





Sudhakar @ Sottai Sudhakar (Age 50 years)S/o.Thiraviyam Nadar … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceCoimbatore CSCID Police Station, Crime No.133/2021Offence: u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w 7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act1955.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. S.Rajendran, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused andThiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusingthe petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.133/2021 of Coimbatore CSCIDPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) Order 1982 r/w7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act 1955, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner illegally transported 1100kgs of PDS rice.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court andsubmitted that this petitioner is n innocent and he is no way connected with theoffence and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is in judicial custodyfrom 23-06-2021 and prayed to release the petitioner on bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case, the accusedhas been transported 1100 kgs of PDS rice unauthorisedly. Except the presentcase, three other cases are pending against this petitioner. All cases are similar innature. In this case, investigation is not yet completed.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Thepetitioner has been arrested for illegal transportation of 1100 kgs of PDS rice.Normally PDS rice is used to distribute to the poor people who are in belowpoverty line. According to the prosecution, the petitioner is in possession of 1100kgs of PDS rice. So the offence committed by the petitioner is nothing but againstthe society.

6. Taking all the above said aspects into consideration, having regard to theantecedents of the petitioner, and also considering the quantum of PDS riceinvolved in this case, this Court is of the considered view that if the petitioner isreleased on bail, he will definitely commit similar type of offence. Hence, thisCourt is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.



Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, CSCID Police Station, Coimbatore.

4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





N.ArunkumarS/o.Nagaraj … Petitioner / Accused No.8

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,C-1, Kattoor (L & O) Police Station, Crime No.1283/2020.Offence: u/s.147, 148, 34, 120(b), 302 and 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.)

The petitioner seeks modification of the condition imposed on him inC.M.P.No.968/2021, dated 11-03-2021.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. S.Sampath, M.V.Vijayaragavan and J.Shrihari, Advocates forthe petitioner / Accused No.8 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner seeks modification of the condition which is already imposed onhim by this Court in C.M.P.No.968/2021, dated 11-03-2021.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that bail wasgranted to the petitioner by this Court on 11-03-2021, in C.M.P.968/2021, with acondition to sign before the Villupuram Town Police Station daily twice at 10.00 a.m.and 5.00 p.m., until further orders. The petitioner is complying the condition from12-07-2021. The petitioner is the only breadwinner of his family and he is not able toafford for staying and food in Villupuram. Hence, the petitioner prays to modify thecondition.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor raised no objection to modify the condition.

4. Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to modifythe condition imposed to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner isdirected to sign before B-4 Police Station, weekly twice i.e., on everyMonday and Friday at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. Further the petitioner isdirected to appear before the Court concerned on all the hearing dates without fail.



COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, C-1, Kattoor (L & O) Police Station, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station, Villupuram.5. The Inspector of Police, B-4 Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Ms.Malathy (Age 52 years)W/o.Muthusamy … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police of PoliceDistrict Crime Branch Police Station, Crime No.9/2021Offence: u/s.406 and 420 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.)

The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to release her on bail 439 ofCr.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. P.R.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused andTmt. / Selvi. S.Jerlin Karol, Advocate for the defacto complainant / intervener[C.M.P.No.2863/2021] and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, representedfor State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing bothside arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.9/2021 of District Crime BranchPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.406 and 420 of IPC, she has filed thispetition, seeking grant of bail.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is working as Head-mistress in Government Primary School,

Coimbatore. Due to health related issues, the petitioner opted for voluntaryretirement. The defacto complainant namely Karthick Kumar is working asPhysical Education Teacher in the same school. The said Karthick Kumarpreferred complaint stating that this petitioner borrowed Rs.20,00,000/- from himand failed to repay the same. The petitioner was summoned by the respondentpolice and she has appeared before the respondent police and gave her explanationand denied the liability. On 02-12-2020, the petitioner sent legal notice to thedefacto complainant. After receiving notice, no action was taken. Thereafter onlythe defacto complainant preferred the present complaint. The defactocomplainant’s intention is to grab money from this petition. The petitioner is aninnocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case and she is in judicialcustody from 08-07-2021 and prayed to release the petitioner on bail.

3. The defacto complainant filed intervening petition and the same wasnumbered as C.M.P.2863/2021. The learned counsel for the intervener hassubmitted that that the petitioner herein borrowed amount from him and failed torepay the same. The learned counsel further submitted that previously, thewhereabouts of the petitioner is not known to the respondent police andsubsequently, the respondent police arrested this petitioner. The petitioner receivedhuge amount from defacto complainant as well as some other persons.Accordingly, they prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happenedfrom 15-05-2017 to 31-12-2019. The petitioner is a Head-mistress in a school.The defacto complainant Karthick Kumar is working as Physical EducationTeacher in the same school. On 15-05-2017, the petitioner received a sum ofRs.10.0 lakhs from the defacto complainant for her daughter’s marriage.Subsequently, on 21-12-2019, again the petitioner received a sum of Rs.10.0 lakhsfor educational purpose. When the defacto complainant demanded the petitionerfor repayment of the amount, she issued two cheques. The defacto complainantpresented the cheque for encashment. The said cheques were dishonoured. Notonly the present defacto complainant, the petitioner herein received huge amountfrom various persons. Total amount borrowed by the petitioner is Rs.49.0 lakhs.In this case, investigation is not yet completed and further complaints have beenreceived by the respondent police.

5. Considering the submissions made by either side, having regard to thenature of offence, period of incarceration, and also considering the facts andcircumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitionersubject to the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on her executing a bond forRs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the JudicialMagistrate No.6, Coimbatore.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police, dailytwice i.e., daily at 10.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m., until further orders.

(iii) The petitioner or her men shall not tamper the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not abscond and she shall co-operate with theinvestigation agency as and when required.




Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.3. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore.5. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused. 6. Counsel for the defacto complainant.

C.M.P.2863/2021 [Intervening petition to C.M.P.2808/2021]

Dated:29-07-2021.

In view of the order passed in C.M.P.2808/2021, this petition is closed.








S.Mohamadsadiq (Age 52 years)C/o.Saiyat ali … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PolicePollachi East Police Station, Crime No.370/2021Offence: u/s.6 and 24(1) Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act 2003and 328 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Pollachi.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. R.Lakshmana Narayanan, B.Gopal, M.Mohanraj andS.R.Muthu Abishek, Advocates for the petitioner / Accused and Thiru.M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing thepetition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.370/2021 of Pollachi East PoliceStation, for the alleged offence u/s.6 and 24(1) Cigarette and Other TobaccoProducts Act 2003 and 328 of IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is he stored banned tobacco productsin a godown. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court andsubmitted that the petitioner is running a shop which is belong to his father-in-lawand the said shop is existing for the past 42 years and is having good reputation inthe area. The petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in thiscase and he is in judicial custody from 23-07-2021 and prayed to release thepetitioner on bail.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happened on23-07-2021 and the same was reported to the respondent police on the same day.In this case, the accused stored 80 to 90 kgs of banned tobacco products in agodown. In this case, investigation is in preliminary stage.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Thepetitioner has been remanded to judicial custody for illegal possession of bannedtobacco products. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that in this case,the accused stored 80 to 90 kgs of banned tobacco products in a godown. Thepetitioner was arrested on 23-07-2021. As of now, initial remand period is not yetcompleted.

6. After considering all the above said aspects, considering the nature ofoffence, having regard to the quantum of tobacco products involved, date of arrestand also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is notinclined to grant bail to the petitioner.



Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Pollachi.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Pollachi East Police Station, Coimbatore District.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Periyasamy (Age 34 years) S/o.Thirumani … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Saibaba Colony Police Station, Crime No.422/2021.Offence: u/s.273, 328 of IPC and Sec.7(1) and 20(2) of COTPA Act 2003.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.)

The petitioner seeks relaxation of the condition imposed on her inC.M.P.No.2454/2021, dated 06-07-2021.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. V.Arunselvan, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused and Thiru.M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petitionsubmitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronouncedthe following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.


2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that bail wasgranted to the petitioner, by this Court, on 06-07-2021, in C.M.P. No.2454/2021, witha condition to sign before respondent police station, daily at 10.00 a.m., until furtherorders. As per the order passed by this Court, the petitioner has been complying withthe condition from 09-07-2021, without any violation. Now, the petitioner prays torelax the condition totally.





COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Saibaba Colony Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Kannappan @ Rasu (Age 50 years)S/o.Kittusamy … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Negamam Police Station, Crime No.292/2021Offence: u/s.447, 294(b), 427, 436, 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Pollachi.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. M.Saravanakumar and V.Mageshkumar, Advocates for thepetitioner / Accused No.2 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

This petition has been heard through Video Conference.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.292/2021 of Negamam PoliceStation, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, forthe alleged offences u/s.447, 294(b), 427, 436, 506(ii) of IPC, he has filed thispetition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner appeared before this Court throughVideo Conference and submitted that the defacto complainant and A-1 arebrothers. This petitioner is arrayed as A-2. A-1 was arrested and released on bailby this Court. On the date of occurrence, there was some quarrel between thedefacto complainant and his brother. This petitioner had gone to the said place andtried to pacify them. Due to that vengeance, the defacto complainant preferred afalse complaint against the petitioner. The petitioner is an innocent and he hasbeen falsely implicated in this case and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to thepetitioner.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the occurrence happenedon 17-06-2021 and the same was reported on the same day. A-1 and the defactocomplainant are brothers. This petitioner is arrayed as A-2. A-1, with themisconception that the defacto complainant had beaten and injured their mother, on17-06-2021, at 09.00 a.m., while the defacto complainant and his brother-in lawwere working near the cement shed that houses the materials needed for the poultryfarm. At that time, A-1 and this petitioner came there and abused the defactocomplainant in filthy language and damaged the cement shed by using sickle andset fire and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Due towhich, the cement shed and the materials which were kept on the cement shedburned. In this case, investigation is not yet completed.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. A-1 andthe defacto complainant are brothers. This petitioner is arrayed as A-2. Thealleged occurrence happened due to the wordy quarrel between the parties. In thiscase, already A-1 was arrested and remanded and subsequently released on bail bythis Court. Considering the nature of offence, having regard to the facts andcircumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitionersubject to the following conditions:-

(i) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- in the event of hisarrest or the petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.2,Pollachi, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from the date ofthis order.

(iii) The petitioner shall produce two sureties likesum each to the value ofRs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Pollachi,within 15 days from the date of this order.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at10.30 a.m., until further orders.

(v) The petitioner should not enter into the defacto complainant’s resi -dence and disturb the defacto complainant and his family members eitherorally or verbally or in any other means.

(vi) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(vii) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with the investiga-tion agency as and when required.

(viii) In case of the condition No.(ii) to (vii) are violated, it is open to the investi-gating officer to file appropriate application before the learned Judicial Magistratefor cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inP.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Pollachi.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Negamam Police Station, Coimbatore District. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





N.Mohammed Sanfar (Age 26 years)S/o.Nazar … Petitioner / Accused No.3

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,D-1, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Crime No.48/2021Offence: u/s.379 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.)

The petition filed on behalf of the petitioner to release him on anticipatory bailu/s.438 of Cr.P.C.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. H.Noorul Ameen, A.Girija and T.Manikandan, Advocates forthe petitioner / Accused No.3 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.48/2021 of D-1, RamanathapuramPolice Station, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police,for the alleged offences u/s.379 of IPC, he has filed this petition, seeking grant ofanticipatory bail.

No representation for the petitioner.


In the interest of justice, this petition is adjourned to 05-08-2021.

Call on 05-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-1, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsels for the Petitioner / Accused.





S.Ebrahim (Age 32 years)S/o.Sagul Ahmeed … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,B-2, R.S.Puram (Crime) Police Station, Crime No.Not Known.Offence: u/s.410 and 411 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. D.Shanmugavel, R.Balasubramaniam and M.Premalatha,Advocates for the petitioner / Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, PublicProsecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mailand upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused for the alleged offences u/s.410 and 411 of IPC,he has filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.


The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that reply has not been received andrequested to adjourn this petition to some other day.

At the request of the Public Prosecutor, this petition is adjourned to03-08-2021.

Call on 03-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S.Puram (Crime) Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsels for the Petitioner / Accused.





M.Maruthu Vignesh (Age 19 years)S/o.Murugan … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceD-3, Podhanur (L & O) Police Station, Crime No.742/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 341 and 307 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. C.Paventhan, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused No.2 andThiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing thepetition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.742/2021 of D-3, Podhanur (L & O)Police Station, for the alleged offence u/s.294(b), 341 and 307 of IPC, he has filedthis petition, seeking grant of bail.




Call on 03-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Podhanur (L & O) Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





A.Prabhakaran (Age 42 years)S/o.Ayyar … Petitioner / Accused No.1

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,M-5, Vadavalli Police Station, Crime No.542/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. C.Dineshkumar, K.Sakthivel and P.Malaisamy, Advocates forthe petitioner / Accused No.1 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.542/2021 of M-5, Vadavalli PoliceStation, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for thealleged offences u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, he has filed this petition, seekinggrant of anticipatory bail.


The learned Public Prosecutor requested to adjourn this petition to some otherday.


Call on 03-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.6, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, M-5, Vadavalli Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsels for the Petitioner / Accused.





R.Surya (Age 23 years)S/o.Rangasamy … Petitioner / Accused No.4

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Crime No.1102/2020.Offence: u/s.120(B), 147, 148, 307 and 34 of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. V.Nandakumar and S.Sutharsan, Advocates for the petitioner /Accused No.4 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.


2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that bail wasgranted to the petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore on 15-02-2021, in C.M.P.No.3008/2021, with a condition to sign before the respondentpolice daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. The petitioner filed a petition inC.M.P.No.14056/2021 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore,praying to relax the condition totally. Considering the gravity of the offence thatpetition was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Coimbatore on 23-

06-2021. Hence, the petitioner approached this Court seeking modification ofcondition. This Court allowed the said petition on 02-07-2021 inC.M.P.No.2511/2021. While allowing the said petition, this Court directed thepetitioner to sign before the respondent police weekly twice i.e., on every Mondayand Friday at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. As per the order passed by this Court,the petitioner has been complying with the condition, without any violation. Now, thepetitioner prays to relax the condition totally.





COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, B-2, R.S.Puram Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Thancir Aswath L.M, (Age 25 years)S/o.Mohammed Abdul Nazeer … Petitioners / Accused

/vs/

State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Ukkadam Police Station, Crime No.163/2021Offence: u/s.143, 341, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)

The petitioner seeks time extension of time to comply the order passed by thisCourt in C.M.P.No.1988/2021, dated 06-05-2021.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. M.Zackriya and T.Bharathi Raja, Advocates for the petitioner /Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, uponperusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, thisCourt pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both sides.

The petitioner seeks time extension of time to comply the order passed by thisCourt in C.M.P.No.1988/2021, dated 06-05-2021.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that anticipatory bail wasgranted to the petitioner by this Court in C.M.P. No.1988/2021, dated 06-05-2021with a condition to surrender and produce two sureties before the Judicial MagistrateNo.5, Coimbatore on or before 25-05-2021. The petitioner could not comply thecondition, due to COVID-19 and the lock down announced by the Government ofTamilnadu. Hence, the petitioner prays to extend the time.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor did not raise any serious objection.

4. In view of the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the consequent lock downannounced by the Government of Tamilnadu, this Court does incline to extend thetime up to 15-08-2021 to the petitioner to comply the order passed by this Courtin C.M.P.No.1988/2021, dated 06-05-2021. In that extent, this petition is allowed.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Ukkadam Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the petitioner / Accused.





Sangili MoorthyS/o.Jambulingam … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,D-2, Selvapuram Police Station, Crime No.383/2021.Offence: u/s.294(b), 323 of IPC and Sec.4 of TNPWH Act.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. R.Murali and D.Vasanthakumar, Advocates for the petitioner /Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, uponperusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, thisCourt pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.


2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted thatanticipatory bail was granted to the petitioner, by this Court, on 21-06-2021, inC.M.P. No.2326/2021, with a condition to sign before the respondent police station,daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. As per the order passed by this Court, thepetitioner has been complying with the condition from 02-07-2021, without anyviolation. The petitioner is the only bread winner of his family. Due to compliance ofthe condition, the petitioner could not attend his regular work. Now, the petitioner

prays to relax the condition totally.





COIMBATORE.


1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-2, Selvapuram Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Shahul Hameed (Age 20 years)S/o.Abdul Rahman … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Crime No.480/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sec.4 of TNPHW Act 2002.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. S.Rajendran, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused No.2 andThiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing thepetition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.480/2021 of D-4, KuniyamuthurPolice Station, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police,for the alleged offences u/s.294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC and Sec.4 of TNPHW Act2002, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.




Call on 03-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Annadurai (Age 39 years)S/o.Rajaram … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,CSCID Coimbatore Police Station, Crime No.122/2021Offence:u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of ECAct, 1955.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. M.Ranganathan and M.Jeyabal, Advocates for the petitioner /Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State,upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.122/2021 of CSCID CoimbatorePolice Station, since he is apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondentpolice, for the alleged offences u/s.6(4) of TNSC (RDCS) order 1982 and Sec.7(1)(a)(ii) of EC Act, 1955, he has filed this petition, seeking grant of anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was in possession of 120kgs of PDS rice unauthorisedly.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and prayedfor grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that on 11-06-2021, at about14.00 hours, the respondent police was standing near Muniyandi Vilas Hotel,Kurumbapalayam, Sathi Road and found one person was standing with three bagseach contains 50 kgs of PDS rice. On seeing the police party, he left the bags andfled away from that place. The total quantum of PDS rice involved in this case is120 kgs. On enquiry, it came to know that the accused purchased PDS rice fromration card holders for lower price and sell the same for higher price in openmarket. Investigation is not yet completed and no previous case is reported againstthe petitioner.

5. This Court has considering the submissions made by either side. Therespondent police registered the case against the petitioner for illegal possession of120 kgs of PDS rice. In this case, the respondent police recovered rice andregistered the case. No previous case is reported against the petitioner.Considering the facts and circumstances, having regard to the quantum of PDS riceinvolved and being the first offender, this Court is inclined to grantanticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:-

(i) Anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- in the event of hisarrest or the petitioner shall surrender before the Judicial Magistrate No.4,Coimbatore, and execute a bond of Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from thedate of this order.

(iii) The petitioner shall produce two sureties likesum each to the value ofRs.10,000/- to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.4, Coimbatore,within 15 days from the date of this order.

(iv) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police daily at10.00 a.m., until further orders.

(v) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(vi) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with the investiga-tion agency as and when required.

(vii) In case of the condition No.(ii) to (vi) are violated, it is open to the investi-gating officer to file appropriate application before the learned Judicial Magistratefor cancellation of bail granted hereby, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inP.K.Shaji /vs/ State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560].


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.4, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, CSCID Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsels for the Petitioner / Accused.





1. Prabha (Age 50 years) W/o.Subramani

2. P.Subramani (Age 58 years) S/o.Late. C.K.Palanisamy

3. S.Prithve Prasad (Age 27 years) S/o.P.Subramani … Petitioners / Accused No.1 to 3.

/vs/State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,D-3, Podhanur Police Station, Crime No.788/2021Offence: u/s.448 and 506(i) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. N.Sridhar, V.Balasubramaniam and S.R.Iyalpari, Advocates forthe petitioners / Accused Nos.1 to 3 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor,represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and uponhearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

This petition has been heard through Video Conference.

This petitioners are the accused in Crime No.788/2021 of D-3, Podhanur PoliceStation, since they are apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, forthe alleged offences u/s.448 and 506(i) of IPC, they have filed this petition, seekinggrant of anticipatory bail.



Heard. The learned Public Prosecutor prays time. The petitioners havebeen charged for the offence u/s. 448 and 506(i). Section 448 is bailableoffence and Section 506(i) alone is non-bailable offence. Considering thenature of the offence as alleged, this Court is inclined to order not to arrestthe petitioners till 06-08-2021.

Call on 06-08-2021. Till such time, the respondent police is directed notto arrest the petitioners.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Podhanur Police Station, Coimbatore. 4. Counsels for the Petitioners / Accused persons.





Hariharan @ Chandru (Age 20 years) (A-2)S/o.Shankar … Petitioner / Accused No.2

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceD-3, Podhanur Police Station, Crime No.741/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tmt/Selvi. K.Narmadha, Advocate for the petitioner / Accused No.2and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusingthe petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Courtpronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.741/2021 of D-3, PodhanurPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.294(b), 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC, he hasfiled this petition, seeking grant of bail.




Call on 03-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Madukkarai.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, D-3, Podhanur Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





T.Nithish Kumar (Age 19 years) S/o.G.Thirumurugan … Petitioner / Accused

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PolicePeelamedu Police Station, Crime No.528/2021Offence: u/s.147, 148, 307, 506(ii) of IPC.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Tvl. R.Kannadasan, M.Ramesh, G.Kapil and S.AhamedAsarudeen, Advocates for the petitioner / Accused and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj,Public Prosecutor, represented for State, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.528/2021 of Peelamedu PoliceStation, for the alleged offence u/s.147, 148, 307, 506(ii) of IPC, he has filed thispetition, seeking grant of bail.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner requested to adjourn thispetition to some other day.


At the request of the petitioner, this petition is adjourned to05-08-2021.

Call on 05-08-2021.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.2, Coimbatore.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore.4. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.





Vigneshkumar (Age 30 years) … Petitioner / Owner of theS/o.Natarajan property

/vs/

State, Rep. bythrough the Inspector of Police,Sulur Police Station, Crime No.633/2021Offence: u/s.379 of IPC r/w Section 21(1) of Mines and Minerals(Development and Regulation Act)1957.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.)

This petition is filed u/s.457 and 451 of Cr.P.C., seeking to pass anorder to return of Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 37 DW 4849.

This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. S.Sundaralingam, Advocate for the petitioner / owner of theproperty, and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented for State, uponperusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both side arguments, thisCourt pronounced the following:-

ORDER

This petition is filed u/s.451 and 457 of Cr.P.C, seeking to pass an order toreturn of property i.e., Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.TN 37 DW 4849, as interimcustody to the petitioner.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner is the owner of the vehicle i.e., Tipper Lorry bearing Reg. No.TN 37 DW 4849. The petitioner is the proprietor of SVT Earth Movers and heused the petition mentioned vehicle for his business purposes. In the said

circumstances, the petitioner prays to return the vehicle to the petitioner asinterim custody.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has filed counter, wherein it is stated thatthe vehicle has been seized by the authorities concerned stating that the saidvehicle was used to transport gravel sand without any valid permission. On thesame day, information was sent to the Revenue Authority to take necessaryaction. Due to Covid 19 Lock-down, the vehicle has not produced before anycourt till now.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Thepetitioner is the owner of the petition mentioned vehicle. The vehicle wasseized by stating that it was used in transporting gravel sand illegally. Therespondent police registered the case in Crime No.633/2021. Due to Covid 19Lock-down, the vehicle has not produced before any court till now.

5. After considering all the above said aspects, this Court is inclined toallow this petition and thereby the petition mentioned vehicle is ordered to bereturned to the petitioner as interim custody subject to the followingconditions:-

(i) Petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees TwentyThousand only) to the credit of the same in Crime No.633/2021 of SulurPolice Station, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.

(ii) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties for a like sum each to thesatisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur. (iii) Petitioner shall give an affidavit before the Judicial Magistrate Court,Sulur, stating that he will not use the vehicle in question for any illegalactivities in future and shall produce the said vehicle as and when required bythe Court.

(iv) Petitioner shall not alter the nature and character of the vehicle. Furtherthe petitioner shall not encumber or alienate the said vehicle without priorpermission of the Court.

(v) Petitioner shall surrender the original RC Book before the Courtconcerned.

(vi) Petitioner is also directed to take photographs of the vehicle in all theangles at his own cost.

(vii) RC Book and photographs of the vehicles should be kept with case

records.


Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Sulur.2. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Government Pleader, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore District.5. Counsel for the Petitioner / Owner of the property.





Radha @ Pasumpon Radha (Age 39 years) S/o.Vel Thevar … Petitioner / Accused No.3

/vs/State, Rep. by the Inspector of PoliceD-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Crime No.466/2021Offence: u/s.294(b), 342, 323, 324, 354(A)(1)(ii) and 506(2) of IPC andSec.4 of TNPHW Act, 2002.Through the Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore. … Complainant(The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.)


This petition is coming on this day for final hearing before this Court in thepresence of Thiru. R.Deepak Chandrakanth, Advocate for the petitioner /Accused No.3 and Thiru. M.Kanagaraj, Public Prosecutor, represented forState, upon perusing the petition submitted via e-mail and upon hearing both sidearguments, this Court pronounced the following:-

ORDER

Heard on both side.

The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.466/2021 of D-4, KuniyamuthurPolice Station, for the alleged offence u/s.294(b), 342, 323, 324, 354(A)(1)(ii) and506(2) of IPC and Sec.4 of TNPHW Act, 2002, he has filed this petition, seekinggrant of bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this petitioner isno way connected with the offence. This petitioner went to the occurrence placeand tried to pacify the accused and the defacto complainant. But due to thevengeance, the defacto complainant preferred a false complaint against thepetitioner. The defacto complainant’s mother never gave any complaint againstthis petitioner. This petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated inthis case and he is in judicial custody from 16-07-2021 and prayed to release thepetitioner on bail.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that occurrence happened on15-07-2021 and the same was reported to the respondent police on the same day.There are three accused in this case. A-1 is the husband of A-2. The petitioner isarrayed as A-3 in this case. The defacto complainant’s mother is running rice mill.Opposite to the said mill, one Bagya is residing. A-1 and A-2 used to come to thesaid Bagya’s house. The defacto complainant’s mother came into contact with A-2.Three years back, there was some wordy quarrel between the defcto complainant’smother and A-2. Subsequently, the said issue was compromised. Due to which,A-1 and A-2 got vengeance against the defacto complainant’s mother. On 15-07-2021, the accused persons picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant’smother. On knowing this, the defacto complainant had gone to the said place andtried to intervene them. At that time, the accused persons tried to assault thedefacto complainant and his mother. At that time, A-1 tried to assault the defactocomplainant by using knife. This petitioner herein caught hold the defactocomplainant and not allowing him to move. A-1 assaulted the defacto complainantby using knife in his face and hands. Further the accused persons pushed thedefacto complainant’s mother down and kicked her. On seeing this, the nearbypeople came and on seeing them, the accused persons fled away from that place.In this case, investigation is not yet completed and the victims were admitted in thehospital on 15-07-2021 and discharged on the next day.

4. This Court has considered the submissions made by either side. Thepetitioner has been remanded to judicial custody for the offences u/s.294(b), 342,323, 324, 354(A)(1)(ii) and 506(2) of IPC and Sec.4 of TNPHW Act, 2002. Thepetitioner is in judicial custody from 16-07-2021. According to the petitioner, hehas been falsely implicated in this case. The learned Public Prosecutor hassubmitted that the alleged occurrence happened due to some previous disputebetween the parties. In that process, the accused persons assaulted the defactocomplainant and his mother. Both victims were admitted in the hospital anddischarged on the next day.

5. After considering all the above said aspects, considering the nature ofoffence, period of incarceration, since victims have been discharged from thehospital, and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Courtis inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the followingconditions:-

(i) The petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond forRs.10,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the JudicialMagistrate No.7, Coimbatore.

(ii) The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent police, dailyat 10.00 a.m. until further orders.

(iii) The petitioner or his men shall not tamper the evidence.

(iv) The petitioner shall not abscond and he shall co-operate with theinvestigation agency as and when required.




Sd/- R. SAKTHIVEL.,



1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.7, Coimbatore.2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.3. The Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.4. The Inspector of Police, D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore.5. Counsel for the Petitioner / Accused.

C.M.P.2863/2021 [Intervening petition to C.M.P.2808/2021]

Dated:29-07-2021.

In view of the order passed in C.M.P.2808/2021, this petition is closed.




IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, COIMBATORE

Presence :Thiru. A.ABDUL RAHMAN, B.COM,L.L.B.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE-V,

COIMBATORE.

Thursday, 29th day of July 2021.

C.M.P. No. 14723 of 2021

Cr.No.815 of 2021

CNR.No. TNCBOA-017938-2021

Kishore (Age 22),

S/o Kumar. ... Petitioner/ Accused

/ Vs/

The Inspector of Police,

Periyanaicken Palayam Police station,

Coimbatore.

Cr. No.815/2021.

U/s 147,148,294(b),323,324,506(ii) IPC ... Respondent/ Complainant

ORDER

Bail Application Filed U/s. 437 OF Cr.P.C filed on behalf of the petitioners by

Advocate P.Rajendran B.Sc,B.L., and Police submitted reply on 29.07.2021. After considering bail

application , FIR and submission of counsel, this court passed the following order.

2. From the materials available submitted through e-mail, it is seen that accused was

charged for the offences under Sections – 147,148,294(b),323,324,506(ii) IPC and he was

arrested by the respondent/police and he was remanded to judicial custody on 26.07.2021.

3. Notice was sent to police . In the reply submitted by police before the court on

29.07.2021 has raised strong objection in releasing the accused on bail, stating that since the

investigation is still pending and the petitioner may tamper the witnesses. The petitioner may

abscond and indulge in same kind of offences, if he is released on bail.

4. The petitioner further submit that he is no way connected in the case. He is hailing from

respectable family. He is having permanent residentaial at Mettupalayam. He will neither abscond

nor tamper the investigation if he is released on bail. He is offering substantial sureties to the

satisfaction of this Hon'ble Court.

5. On perusal of case records and the reply submitted by the police, and it is seen that

petitioner is in judicial custody for the past 4 days. Considering the fact and circumstances of this

case, nature of the offence and the period of incarceration, this court is inclined to grant bail to

petitioner subject to the following conditions .

1. The petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- along with two sureties each to the like sum

amount.

2.The petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police Daily at 10.00 a.m. for period of 30days.

3.The petitioner is directed that shall not hamper the witnesses and shall appear whenever the court

is order.

This order is dictated to the Steno-Typist and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the day of 29th day of July 2021.

/Sd/A.Abdul Rahman.B.com,L.L.B.,

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V,

COIMBATORE .


1. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.2. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Coimbatore.3. The Inspector of Police, Periyanaicken Palayam Police station,4. The Counsel for the Petitioner in the respective petition/accused person.

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.VI, COIMBATORE.

PRESENT : Thiru. A. ABDUL RAHMAN, B.COM., L.L.B., Judicial Magistrate No.V,

Judicial Magistrate No. VI(FAC), Coimbatore.

C.M.P. No.14733/2021in

Cr. No. 243/2021Thursday the 29th day of July 2021

Arunagiri S/o. Sivanadiyar .. Petitioner/Accused

/ VERSUS / Inspector of Police,M2 Thondamuthur P.S.,Cr.No: 243/2021U/s : 5, 7(3) Lottery Act .. Respondent/Complainant

ORDER

The bail application filed U/s. 437 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner by

Advocate Thiru.T. Ramesh, B.A., L.L.B., in C.M.P. No. 14733/2021 received by

this court on 27.07.2021. The respondent/police submitted their reply through e

mail on 28.07.2021.

After carefully consideration of the bail application and the reply submitted

by the respondent/police this court passed the following order,

The petitioner is the accused in the above crime number. The

Petitioner/accused was arrested and remanded to Judicial custody U/s.5, 7(3)

Lottery Act on 27.07.2021. For the past 3 days the petitioner is in Judicial

custody. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner totally 10 numbers of

Kerala State STHREESAKTHI lottery tickets possessed in his shirt pocket which

were banned by the Government of Tamilnadu and caught by the

respondent/Police.

In the bail application it was submitted the accused was arrested for the

alleged offence U/s.5, 7(3) Lottery Act. In the bail application it was further

submitted the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any

such offence. In the bail application it was further submitted the petitioner is a

lawabiding citizen and if the petition is allowed he will produce substantial

sureties and he will not abscond. On these grounds the petitioner asked this

court to grant bail.

In the reply the respondent/police has stated the petitioner sold the 10 nos.

lottory tickets which were banned by the Government of Tamilnadu and the case

property Rs.200/ and the note used by the petitioner for committing the offence

were recovered on the date of occurrence. The respondent/police further stated if

the petition is allowed the petitioner will abscond and tamper the witness and he

will commit the same kind of offence. The respondent/police further submitted

the investigation is still pending and strongly opposed this petition.

On perusal of the records the petitioner was arrested and remanded to

judicial custody on 27.07.2021 for the alleged offence U/s. 5, 7(3) Lottery Act.

For the past 03 days the petitioner is in judicial custody. Hence, considering the

facts and circumstances and considering the Covid19 Pandemic situation in the

interest of justice this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with

following conditions.

1. The petitioner shall produce two sureties like some each to the value of

Rs.10,000/ to the satisfaction of this court.

2. The petitioner and the sureties are directed to produce their ID proof.

3. The petitioner is directed to cooperate the investigation and shall not

tamper the evidence.

4. The petitioner is directed to sign before the respondent/ police daily at

10.30 AM for the period of 15 days.

The order is typed, corrected and pronounced by me via email on 29 th July

2021.

Sd./A. Abdul Rahman,

Judicial Magistrate No. VI(FAC),Coimbatore.


1. The Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The Assistant Public Prosecutor, Judicial Magistrate No.VI Court, Coimbatore.

3. The Inspector of Police, M2 Thondamuthur Police Station, Coimbatore.

4. Counsels for the Petitioner in the respective petitions/ Accused persons.

Thiru. R. SAKTHIVEL, B.A., B.L., PRINCIPAL DIS - District Court

Documents