Dhanasekaran, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the First day of February Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.1565 of 2018 1 DHANASEKARAN, 2 BANUPRIYA, 3 VIJAYAKUMAR, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 to 3 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.11/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 379 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.11 of 2017, seeking relief to grant of anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners borrowed a loan Rs.18,50,000/- from the defacto complainant, subsequently stolen away 50 sovereigns gold from her home. Thereby, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the first and second petitioners are the close relatives to the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence he prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that totally there are three accused in this case and the property has not yet been recovered. The second petitioner, who is the main accused in this case, has mortgaged the stolen property in the Cooperative Bank. According to him, investigation is still pending.

5. Upon considering the arguments advanced by either side, it is alleged that during the time of occurrence the petitioners herein avail a loan Rs.18,50,000/- from the defacto complainant. Further it is alleged during the time of coming over to the house of defacto complainant the second petitioner herein has stolen away 50 sovereigns of gold. As of now, stolen property has not recovered. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail for first and second petitioner. With regard to the second petitioner/A2 considering the specific allegation against her and the nature of the offence committed by the second petitioner/A2, custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the stolen property. Hence, the petition is dismissed as against the second petitioner/A2 alone. 6.

For remaining petitioners/A1 and A3, considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioners/A1 and A3, custodial interrogation may not be necessary for completing the investigation. Accordingly, they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) the petitioners/A1 and A3 shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. (ii) the petitioners/ A1 and A3 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii) the petitioners/ A1 and A3 shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners/A1 and A3 shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/- 01/02/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, RAMANATHAPURAM 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate SR.No.1781

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1565 of 2018 Date :01/02/2018 SMA/RR-CSL/SAR-4/12.02.2018:3P/6c