Murugan v. State Rep. By

Crl.O.P.No.10381 of 2016 P.KALAIYARASAN , J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 379 and 430 of IPC on the file of the respondent police, in Crime No. 180 of 2016 and seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Heard both sides.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences of sand theft and he is also having permanent residence and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the prosecution in the event of the petitioner's release on anticipatory bail.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no serious objection.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner is having permanent residence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

P.KALAIYARASAN, J.

Rj

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruvallur and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. 05.05.2016 Rj Crl.O.P.No.10381 of 2016