Murukeshwari v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3175 of 2022 MURUKESHWARI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AVINASHIPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.989 OF 2020).

For Petitioner : M/S.P.PUGALENTHI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under sections 392 IPC altered with 394 and 414 of IPC in Crime No.989 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused-No.4, along with other accused, allegedly entered into the defacto complainant's house and committed a theft of 30 sovereigns of gold jewels. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that in the averments found in the FIR, does not discloses the overt act of the petitioner.

He also submit that the petitioner is a first offender and he is also having permanent residence. Accordingly, he pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police raised objection stating that the investigation is pending. However, he fairly admits that, against this accused, there is no specific overt act and the petitioner is only a suspected accused. He further submit that the property which was stolen during the alleged occurrence was recovered by the respondent police.

5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either sides are considered.

6. The respondent police registered the case against the petitioner for the offenes punishable under sections 392 IPC altered with 394 and 414 of IPC. Admittedly, the property which was stolen away in the alleged occurrence was recovered by the respondent police. In otherwise, the averments found in the FIR, did not reflect the petitioner has also participated in the alleged occurrence. 7.Taking note of all the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court came to the conclusion that custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. 8.Therefore, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions. 9.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam, Tiruppur on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(b)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(d)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions has been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 15/02/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALLADAM, TIRUPPUR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR DISTRICT. [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AVINASHIPALAYAM POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.P.PUGALENTHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.2342 CRL OP.3175/2022 Date :15/02/2022 RW 22/02/2022