James Jeyaraj v. State Rep By Inspector Of

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirteenth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.15609 and 15612 of 2015 JAMES JEYARAJ ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.15609/2015 A.SIVAKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.15612/2015 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AIRPORT POLICE STATION,TRICHY.

(CRIME NO.72 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S C.T.PERUMAL Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONES For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONES PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C.IN BOTH THE PETITIONES.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15609 of 2015 is arrayed as Accused No.2 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.15612 of 2015 is arrayed as Accused No.1 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.72 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. According to the defacto complainant, she has given a TATA tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN 63 AV 5995 for service and the same was not returned, despite of payment of service charges.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant had purchased nine tipper lorries from one Act India Company where the petitioners are employees and the defacto complainant has given her lorry for service, but failed to pay the bill raised by the company and therefore, it was withheld by the company.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners are only the employees of the company and they have been falsely implicated in this case and after registration of the case, the defacto complainant was given the custody of the lorry by the Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

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

7. 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.VI, Trichy 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions 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 petitions for anticipatory bail stand dismissed. sd/- 13/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, TRICHY 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, AIRPORT POLICE STATION, TRICHY.

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

+1CC to M/S C.T.PERUMAL Advocate SR.No.46246 +1CC to M/S.C.T.PERUMAL Advocate SR.No.46247 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15609 AND 15612 of 2015 Date :13/08/2015 GJM/SAR/J-17.8.15/2P-7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/