Ponnusamy, S/O. Perappa Konar, v. The Sub Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth day of July Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.14427 of 2015 PONNUSAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED A-2 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUZILIAMPARAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.204/2015. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.KAMESWARAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. 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 offence punishable under Sections 405, 468, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.204 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.According to the de-facto complainant, he had a dispute with the second accused/petitioner herein and he was taken to the house of the former MLA S.V.Krishnan and he was forced to sign in a blank papers, stamp papers and in a promissory note and by misusing the papers, they are attempt to grab the property. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence said to have taken place in the year 1998, however the complaint was lodged after 17 years and that the de-facto complainant had borrowed money from one Vengudusamy on promissory note and the said Vengudusamy had instituted a suit against the de-facto complainant before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai in O.S.No.75 of 2014 for recovery of money and the suit was decreed and the appeal suit was filed by the de-facto complainant in A.S.No.143 of 2010 was also dismissed by the Sub Court, Dindigul. After finishing the battle before the civil Court, the de-facto complainant has filed a false complaint.

4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Considering the 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, Vedachandhur, Dindigul District and on 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., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. 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/- 28/07/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VEDACHANDHUR, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2 -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL.

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUZILIAMPARAI POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.S.KAMESWARAN Advocate SR.No.42148 Akm/29.07.15 /2p-6c/

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14427 of 2015 Date :28/07/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/