Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/1140/2015granted

Kalavathi v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-01-23Honourable Mr Justice M. Sathyanarayanan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.1140 of 2015 1 KALAVATHI 2 SARAVANAN 3 RAMAMOORTHY 4 NAGANANDHINI 5 MUTHUMARI 6 PAULPANDI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 6 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

CR. NO. 408/2014. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SUKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C in Cr.No.408 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that these petitioners are arrayed as A.1 to A.6 and the offences are said to have been committed prior to 18.08.2014 and the complaint was lodged on 27.11.2014 and the defacto complainant is none other than the sister of the first petitioner and according to her she is running a business by renting out vessels and by making out false allegations, all the petitioners had took the vessels and also her gold jewels and other utensils and pursuant to the same, when it was questioned by the defacto complainant, she was threatened with dire consequences.

3. It is alleged by the defacto complainant that she is in need of urgent money, since her husband is suffering from kidney failure.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that on earlier occasion, the third petitioner gave a complaint against the defacto complainant's husband, by enraging the same, the present https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complaint has been lodged by the defacto complainant and it is appeared on account of personal enmity and the petitioners are nothing to with the alleged commission of offence.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is pending.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of allegations, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Theni and on each of them executing a personal 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 petitioners 1, 4 and 5 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m for a period of one week and thereafter as and when required for interrogation and the petitioners 2, 3 and 6 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

7. The petitioners 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/- 23/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THENI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.S.SUKUMAR Advocate SR.No.3181

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1140 of 2015 Date :23/01/2015 NA/27/01/2015/P2/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/