K.Sindhu, Female Aged 29 Years v. State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 22.09.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL.OP.No.21214 of 2016 K.Sindhu

...Petitioner/Accused No.2

vs.

State rep.by Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Coimbatore (Crime No.1 of 2016)

...Respondent/Complainant

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., praying to modify the condition imposed on this petitioner by the Hon'ble Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2132 of 2016 dated 24.08.2016 "to produce the documents related to the immovable property for the value of Rs.15 lakhs each as surety"and the quantum of value of the document surety shall be modified as Rs.5 lakhs for each surety.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mohanraj For Respondent : Mr.C.Emalias, APP

O R D E R

This petition has been filed to modify the condition imposed on the petitioner by the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act cases, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.2132 of 2016 dated 24.08.2016 to produce the documents relating to the immovable property for the value of Rs.15 lakhs each as surety and to modify the quantum of value of the document surety as Rs.5 lakhs for each surety.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

3. The petitioner was arrested by the respondent police on 22.06.2016 for offence u/s.420 IPC and Section 5 of the TNPID Act in Crime No.1 of 2016 and was remanded to judicial custody by the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore. Even after lapse of sixty days, the police had not filed the final report and therefore, the petitioner was released on bail u/s.167 (2) on condition that, he should execute a bond for Rs.15 lakhs with two sureties for like sum and they must be his close relatives and that they should produce documents relating to immovable properties worth Rs.15 lakhs.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that, the petitioner is not the wife of Muthukumar and that she is a spinster and her father's name is Karunanidhi. The respondent police have wrongly designated her as wife of Muthukumar in the FIR and this has been carried out in records of final report, commitment of warrant as well as in the jail records. The learned counsel further submitted that, the petitioner hails from a poor family and she was working as an employee in Kovai Land Bank that was run by Muthukumar.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that it will be in the interest of the justice if the bail condition is modified to the effect that the petitioner shall execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two sureties to the like sum, the sureties being blood relatives, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore. Rest of the conditions imposed by the trial Court are confirmed.

With the above modification, this petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar dpq To

1. The Special Judge, The Special Court under TNPID Act Cases, Coimbatore

2. Inspector of Police, EOW-II, Coimbatore

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

2 ccs to Mr.B.Mohanraj, Advocate, sr.55880 CRL.OP.No.21214 of 2016 ctr co kra 29.09.2016