Naba Kumar Shaw v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13614 of 2022 NABA KUMAR SHAW [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-2, ELEPHANT GATE POLICE STATION, NEAR ELEPHANT GATE BRIDGE, ADHI ANDRA COLONY, CHENNAI-600 108.

(CRIME NO.174/2022) For Petitioner : M/S.GIRIDHAR AND SAI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor 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 offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.174 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a senior goldsmith by profession and he is a permanent resident of Rampur Village, Jagatballavpur, Howrah, West Bengal. The petitioner is doing business with the defacto complainant for the past thirty years. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the defacto complainant who is the son took over the business and lodged the false complaint. He further submitted that while crafting the golden jewellery pieces requires melting, cutting and shaping which leads some possible amount of wastage to form a single piece of jewellery. During the course of petitioner's work with the defacto complainant, the petitioner estimated that the wastage could be 0.4% and informed the same to the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant calculated

that the actual wastage incurred was 0.6% for the past thirty years and lodged complaint alleging that the defacto complainant handed over 1400 grams of gold bar. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the Covid-19 pandemic lock down, the defacto complainant suffered heavy loss in business. In order to compensate the losses, the defacto complainant demanding money from the petitioner and failing which he threatened the petitioner's family members and false case was foisted against the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner has received 1400 grams of gold bar for making ornaments for the past thirty years and the defacto complainant estimated that the wastage of the gold was 0.6%, and there is no previous case as against the petitioner. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the learned VIII Metopolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two blood 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition 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 report before the respondent police daily Morning at 10.30 a.m. and Evening at 5.30 p.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. [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]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

-sd/- 17/06/2022 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 VIII METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI.

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-2, ELEPHANT GATE POLICE STATION, NEAR ELEPHANT GATE BRIDGE, ADHI ANDRA COLONY, CHENNAI 600 108.

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S.GIRIDHAR AND SAI Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.9811 CRL OP.13614/2022 Date :17/06/2022 CSK 23/06/2022