Jaiheind @ Viganesh v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eighth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.12170 of 2015 JAIHEIND @ VIGANESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.5 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUZHUTHIPATTI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DT, CRIME NO.62/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, 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 arrayed as accused No.5 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 342, 364(A), 368 and 397 of I.P.C., in Crime No.62 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. According to the de-facto complainant viz., Chandrasekaran, the accused kidnapped him and also taken away 30 sovereigns of jewels, cash of Rs.5 lakhs and also a car.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an engineering college student and he has been implicated only based on the confession of the first accused. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence and the accused 1, 2, 3 and 6 were arrested and the properties were recovered from them.
4. It is further submitted that the second accused viz., Prabhu lodged a complaint against the de-facto complainant on 07.08.2014 alleging that the de-facto complainant had received Rs.43 lakhs from him and also other persons assuring employment at Italy and the case was registered in Crime No.20 of 2014 by the City Crime Branch, Trichy.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the de-facto complainant had received huge amount from the accused as well as the other general public assuring them to get employment in abroad and later, he did not fulfil his commitment and therefore, he was abducted by the accused. It is further submitted that the cash and the other properties were recovered from the other accused.
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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur 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 6.00 p.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/- 08/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUPPATHUR.
2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUZHUTHIPATTI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.P.GANAPATHI SUBRAMANIAN Advocate SR.No.37279
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12170 of 2015 Date :08/07/2015 PA/PRV/13.07.2015/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/