J.Kannadasan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.3711 of 2018 1 J.KANNADASAN 2 POOMADEVI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.1&2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATIN, MADURAI DISTRICT (IN CRIME NO. 12 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.12 of 2018, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant entered into a sale agreement for the purchase of the petitioners' property. A sale consideration was fixed as Rs.3,50,000/-, in which, Rs.1,00,000/- paid as advance amount and the time is fixed as three months. After the execution of sale agreement, the defacto complainant did not come forward to pay the balance amount. Hence, there was a wordy quarrel arose between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, for which, the petitioners tried to assault the defacto complainant. Hence, a case has been registered for the above said offences.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have been falsely implicated, further added that they have not committed any
offence as alleged, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the State submitted that investigation is still pending. 5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, due to previous enmity, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and made life threat. Admittedly, the petitioners and the defacto complainant have entered into the sale agreement, due to which, the dispute was arose with regard to the sale of the property. Considering the Judgment reported in (2009) 4 SCC 696, since the alleged offence was happened due to breach of contract, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
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, Melur, Madurai District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.
(ii)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of three weeks, thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
(i)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(iv)On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners 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/- 09/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MELUR, MADURAI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDCIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATIN, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.UDHAYAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.3792
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.3711 of 2018 Date :09/03/2018 PK/RR-CSL/SAR-4/19.03.2018 : 3P/6C