V. Ramasubramanian v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13358 of 2015 V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Rank not known Vs The State represented by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.ANAND Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Jeyakumar, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC in Crime No.
83 of 2015, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the property originally belonged to the mother of the defacto complainant and the petitioner and the same was leased out to Muthoot Bankers. After the death of the mother of the petitioner and the defacto complainant, the lease was not extended. The defacto complainant did not give consent for extension of lease. Without consent of the defacto complainant, by forging the signature of the defacto complainant, the petitioner extended the lease period. Therefore, the defacto complainant has given the complaint and the same was registered in Crime No.83 of 2015 for the offences stated above.
3.The case of the petitioner is that after the death of his mother, the defacto complainant gave consent for collection of rent and based on the same only, the lease was extended. Now, to extract money, the defacto complainant has given the false complaint. The petitioner is not denying the ownership of the defacto complainant.
4.Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side).
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
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.
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/- 24/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI 2 -do-thro THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.R.ANAND Advocate SR.No.67410 sm:sks-rr-SAR-II:26.11.2015:2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13358 of 2015 Date :24/11/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/