Periyasamy v. State Rep By

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.14027 of 2022 1 PERIYASAMY [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 V.P.PERIYASAMY 3 V.P.UMA MAHESWARI 4 SHIYAMRAJ P V @ SHYAM Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOLANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.164/2022) For Petitioner : M/S C.S.SARAVANAN 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 petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.164 of 2022 on the file respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are running a poultry farm and he had procured poultry feeds from the defacto complainant during the year 2014-15 to the tune of Rs.19,25,280/- and further the petitioners are alleged to have received Rs.30,00,000/- from the defacto complainant through bank account of 6th Accused promising that they would return the said amount within 15 days and further alleged to have received Rs.15,72,000/- from the defacto complainant but the petitioners are failed to return the said amount cheated the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant and his wife had gone to the 2nd petitioner's house on 01.05.2022 at about 3.00 p.m. At that time the petitioners and other accused persons were alleged to have threatened the defacto complainant and his wife. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and nothing to do with the alleged offence. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the respondent police harassed 2nd petitioner. This Court passed an order in Crl.O.P.No.11321 of 2022 directing the respondent police to conclude the enquiry within a period of two weeks. But, the respondent police failed to conclude the enquiry. The defacto complainant again lodged the complaint as against the petitioners and the 5th accused who is a friend of the defacto complainant had filed a case against the petitioner's firm in STC No.109/2022 before Judicial Magistrate -I, Bhavani. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners have received the said amount and failed to repay the amount and cheated the defacto complainant. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged complaint as against the petitioners. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the defacto complainant supplied dry fish products for procured poultry feeds to the tune of Rs.19,25,280/- in which, the defacto complainant had received some part of amount and the petitioners were failed to pay the same. That apart, the petitioners and A5 paid a sum of Rs.20 lakhs as commission for borrowing loan.

(*)6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions"

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, on or before 08.07.2022 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Dharapuram, on condition that the petitioners shall execute separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that;

[a] the petitioners 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 petitioners A1, A2 and A4 shall report before the respondent Police daily at Morning 10.30 a.m and Evening 5.00 p.m for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and A3 shall appear before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. [c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. [d] the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 absconds, 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.

(*) Being mentioned as per order of this Court dated 27/06/2022. Made in Crl.O.P.NO.14027/2022.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHARAMPURAM.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUPPUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOOLANUR POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

+1 CC to M/S C.S.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.10174 CRL OP.14027/2022 Date :17/06/2022 TA-23/06/2022 TA-29/06/2022