Ramesh Narayanan v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Third day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.12208 of 2015 RAMESH NARAYANAN ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, USILAMPATTI, MADURAI DT, CRIME NO.279/2015 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.MURUGAN Advocate For Respondent : The 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 sole accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.279 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.One Kamayee lodged a complaint alleging that her jewels were sold by the accused, even after the receipt of Rs.82,000/- without following the bank guidelines.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working as Branch Manger in the State Bank of India, Usilampatti Branch and the de-facto complainant has availed loan from the bank on 28.10.2011 and thereafter, she did not pay interest regularly and also the principal amount and therefore, the bank issued notice to the de-facto complainant on 11.09.2014, 26.09.2014 and 24.10.2014, which was also received by the de-facto complainant on 30.09.2014 and the bank also issued proper notification for the sale of the jewels of the de-facto complainant. It is further submitted that the de-facto complainant has paid only Rs.82,000/- towards interest and the balance principal amount was not paid. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has followed the procedures and sold the jewels of the de-facto complainant and therefore, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

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

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti and on his 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 as and when required for interrogation. 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/- 03/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, USILAMPATTI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TOWN POLICE STATION, USILAMPATTI, MADURAI DT,

1. CC to M/S.R.MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.36239 DM 87 15 2p 6c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12208 of 2015 Date :03/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/