Veeramani v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2015 AND CRL OP(MD)NO.16468 OF 2015 1.VEERAMANI ...PETITIONER / ACCUSED (Rank not known) IN CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2015 2.V.GAYATHRI ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL.O.P.No.16468 OF 2015 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, CR.NO. 72 OF 2015. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2015 For Petitioner : M/S.V.ILLANCHEZIAN Advocate IN CRL OP(MD) No.16468 of 2015 For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH PETITIONS For Intervenor : Mr.N.
SATHISH BABU, ADVOCATE, IN BOTH PETITIONS PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 & 2, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C. in Crime No.72 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.According to the prosecution, the accused by giving false promise for arranging the loan of 18 crores made the defacto complainant to spend 35 lakhs, but
subsequently, failed to arrange the loan nor returned the amount spent by the defacto complainant.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. It is further submitted that the second accused is the un-married daughter of the first accused and she also has been falsely roped in this case with ulterior motive.
4.It is further contended that the petitioners have spent the entire amount, for which, payment were made through cheque and it is further submitted that the defacto complainant has borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the first accused on 06.09.2011 and now he has given a false complaint.
5.The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed the granting of anticipatory bail to the petitioners contending that they are habitual offenders and by making false promise of arranging loan, they caused wrongful loss to the defacto complainant. 6.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.
7.Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai and on each of them 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 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13775 of 2015 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16468 of 2015 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
8.The petitioners 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/- 01/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, 2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.1,MADURAI 3 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI 1CC to M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.50701 1CC tO N.SATHISH BABU, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.50732 1CC tO M/S.ILLANCHEZIAN, ADVOCATE, SR.NO.50805.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13775 of 2015 AND CRL OP(MD)NO.16468 OF 2015 Date :01/09/2015 3P/8C AM/03.09.2015/AAL-MPA/SAR-I