M.Sudha v. State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3908 of 2022 M.SUDHA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARACHALUR POLICE STATION, 5P72+PFJ, ARACHALUR, ERODE,TN 638101.

(CRIME NO.56 OF 2022) For Petitioner : MR.M.L.JOSEPH For M/S.CHENNAI LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate For Respondent : MR.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 at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.56 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner and her husband for securing employment in Aavin Milk, Tiruppur and since, the petitioner has not secured employment to the defacto complainant as well as refused to return the amount, the defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Hence, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that in the alleged occurrence the petitioner herein being the wife of the 1st accused received only Rs.10,000/-

and as of now, she is ready to deposit the same, to the credit of Crime Number 56 of 2022. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police raised objections stating that investigation is pending. However, he fairly admits that in the alleged transaction the petitioner herein has received only Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant and others.

However, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. The averments found in the FIR and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, would disclose the fact that during the relevant point of time, the husband of the petitioner received so much of amount from various persons assuring that he would secure jobs. On the other hand, when the dispute arose, he executed an Agreement of Undertaking, wherein he undertook to repay the entire amount. However, he was secured and later released on bail. In respect to the present petition, the only allegation levelled against this petitioner is that she received a sum of Rs.10,000/- and now the petitioner is ready to deposit the same. Therefore, taking into consideration all these aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the credit of Crime No.56 of 2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Erode. The above deposit is made without prejudice to her defence before the trial court and the petitioner shall submit proof of payment of the said amount before the aforesaid learned Judicial Magistrate, who after perusing the receipt/acknowledgment shall accept the sureties furnished by the petitioner;

(b) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

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

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

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

(f) 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 have 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; (g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

-sd/- 17/02/2022 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-II, ERODE.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERODE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARACHALUR POLICE STATION, 5P72 PFJ, ARACHALUR, ERODE,TN 638101.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S.CHENNAI LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.2640 CRL OP.3908/2022 Date :17/02/2022 CSK 21/02/2022