V.Meenakshisundaram v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.13442 of 2015 1 V.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM 2 K.S.RAJA@SELVARAJ THEERTHAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED -1&3 JAISANKAR ... INTERVENOR Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO. 458 OF 2014.) RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAVI Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govternment Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : M/S.K.SIVABALAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 and A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 294(b), 323, 342 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.458 of 2014 and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.According to the de-facto complainant, A1 was working in Reliance Digital shop and he took the de-facto complainant to the shop on 20.05.2015 and on 21.05.2015, the de-facto complainant received a message from the Reliance Digital shop as if he purchased TV set and remitted Rs.
16,565/- and he has to pay the balance amount of Rs.58,332/- on monthly instalment of Rs.4,167/- and when this was questioned, the accused threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the second petitioner/A3 has only threatened the de-facto complainant, at the time of questioning A2 and the entire mischief was committed by A1. The learned counsel further submitted that he seeks permission of this court to withdraw the petition against the first petitioner/A1.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.Mr.K.Sivabalan, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that A1 has committed similar offence and so many cases were registered against him.
5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
6.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 2nd petitioner with certain conditions. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he has withdrawn this petition in respect of the first petitioner/A1, this petition is dismissed against the first petitioner/A1.
7.Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Maduai 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 2nd petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The 2nd petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
8.The 2nd 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/- 05/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI.
2 DO THROUGH THE CHEIF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DIST. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.S.RAVI Advocate SR.No.44321
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13442 of 2015 Date :05/08/2015 CSL/IV/SAR-II/ 10/08/2015 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/