P.Ravi v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.04.2025
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN P. Ravi S/o. Perumal ... Petitioner / Accused Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector Of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem City, Salem District.
... Respondent [Cr. No.575 of 2019] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner / Accused in Crime No. 575 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. Mayilnathan.S.
For Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate [Criminal side]
ORDER
1/6
The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code in connection with the case in Crime No. 575 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had misused the personal details and also the blank cheques of the defacto complainant and transferred a total sum of Rs.9,15,999/- on various dates to his account and thus committed the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that the above transactions took place with the knowledge of the defacto complainant; and that in any case, transactions took place in the year 2019 and since custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, he may be granted anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to 2/6
the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted that investigation is pending.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts, nature of allegations, the fact that the FIR was registered in the year 2019 and the petitioner has not been arrested so far, the allegations are borne out by records, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.
6. 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 No.II, Salem on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of 3/6
the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[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 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 [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered 4/6
under Section 269 B.N.S.
02.04.2025 mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3.The Inspector of Police, Shevapet Police Station, Salem City, Salem District.
SUNDER MOHAN. J., mjs 5/6
02.04.2025 6/6