Sathishkumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventh day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.15203 of 2015 1 SATHISHKUMAR 2 MUTHAMMAL 3 RAJI ALIAS DHANALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUDHUNAGAR EAST POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR. CRIME NO.374 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.GANDHI Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC and section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, in Crime No.374 of 2015 and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the de-facto complainant, A1 was working as Driver under her and he borrowed Rs.2,00,000/- in the year 2012, but failed to pay the amount 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; that the petitioners 2 and 3/A2 and A3 are non other than the mother and sister of first petitioner/A1. and that A1 is the permanent resident of German and earlier, the de-facto complainant borrowed money from A1 and after sometime, it was settled. While so, the accused was threatened by one Sugumaram, who is the relative of the defacto complainant and therefore, the petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.98 of 2015 before the District Munsif Court, Virudhunagar and thereafter, this complaint is filed.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioners have no bad antecedents and it is a case money transaction and the accused threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.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.II, Virudhunagar 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 1st petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m until further orders and the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7.

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/- 07/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIRUDHUNAGAR EAST POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR. +1. CC to M/S.R.GANDHI Advocate SR.No. 45003. TS/12.08.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15203 of 2015 Date :07/08/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/