Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11782/2015disposed of

Bhuvaneswari v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-08-13Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.11782 of 2015 BHUVANESWARI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVANTHI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.117 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.117 of 2015 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b),323,324, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. According to the de facto complainant viz., Ponnusamy that the accused in the month of February 2015 received Rs.1,00,000/- from him to secure employment in an Anganwadi and subsequently, failed to fulfil her obligation.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she borrowed Rs.1,00,000/- from the de facto complainant, by giving unfilled signed cheques and the de facto complainant had issued notice through his lawyer dated 04.08.2015 for dis honour of the cheque and in the notice he has stated nothing about the allegations made in the complaint. He further submitted that the petitioner is a poor lady and she is falsely implicated in this case with an ulterior https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ motive. He has also produced a copy of the notice sent by the de facto complainant along with cover.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that this is the case of job racketing and the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No- II, Sivagangai District, and on 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 am and 5.00 pm until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

6. 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/- 13/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI.

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

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE POOVANTHI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.46291 Akm/17.08.2015 /2p-6c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11782 of 2015 Date :13/08/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/