Karupatti@Ayyavu v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.10894 of 2015 KARUPATTI@AYYAVU ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST, (CRIME NO. 126 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate(crl.side) For Intervenor :

MR.S.A.CHAKARAVARTHY, ADVOCATAE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.126 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i), 120(b) and 379 (NP) of I.P.C. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.According to the defacto complainant, the accused have cut and removed the 18 teak trees worth about Rs.12 lakhs and thereby they commtted theft and thereafter threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as a watchman in the property in dispute and the original owner name Mrs.Synam Beevi had two sons and one daughter and she had bequeathed the property in favour of her daughter and in respect of the property there is a dispute among the legal heirs. The learned counsel further submitted that the son-inlaw of the original owner is the main accused in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is only a watchman and he is nothing to do with the offence.

4.Mr.S.A.Chakaravarthy, learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed this petition stating that the accused have committed the heinous crime and they have cut and removed 20 years old teak trees.

5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District and on each of them executing 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

7. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 17/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2.THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI.

3.THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MELAVALAVU POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST.

+1. CC to M/S.M.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.31588 +1cc to M/S.EDDY & EMBBOSS LAW FIRM,ADVOCATE IN SR NO.31551

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10894 of 2015 Date :17/06/2015 RG.23.06.2015 2P/7C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/