Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/14322/2015allowed

Arumugaperumal Alias Uppu v. The Inspector Of Police,

2015-07-27Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.14322 of 2015 ARUMUGAPERUMAL ALIAS UPPU PERUMAL, ... PETITIONER(S) / ACCUSED 2 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI. CR. NO.314/2015 ... RESPONDENT(S) / COMPLAINANT(S) For Petitioner : M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government 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 A2 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.

314 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.According to the de-facto complainant, the petitioner/A2 introduced A1 and she paid Rs.1,60,000/- to A1 to secure employment in the Madurai Kamaraj University, but he did not keep up his words. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the father-inlaw of the de-facto complainant and the petitioner are friends and even as per the averments in the FIR, the petitioner has not introduced A1 to the de-facto complainant and it is merely stated that he accompanied with A1.

The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has not received any amount and he has nothing to do with the alleged transaction between A1 and the de-facto complainant.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the

petitioner had no bad antecedent.

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 No.VI, Madurai 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 daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. 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/- 27/07/2015 / 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 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAI PUDUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

1. CC to M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.41828 DM 31 7 15 - 2P 6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14322 of 2015 Date :27/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/