Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16448/2015disposed of

Moses v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-08-31Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirty First day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.16448 & 16447 of 2015 MOSES ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO. 1 IN CRL OP(MD) No.16448 OF 2015

1. PETCHIAMMAL

2. PUTHURA @ ARUMUGAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 & 3 IN CRL OP (MD) NO. 16447 OF 2015 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 330 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS FOR PETITIONER : M/S R.ANAND ADVOCATE IN BOTH THE PETITIONS FOR RESPONDENT : MRS.S.PRABHA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS 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 417, 376, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.330 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.According to the de-facto complainant, who is aged about 23 years, she was cheated by A1 by giving false promise of getting her married and had sexual relationship with her and later, A1 did not keep up his words, at the instigation of the other accused. 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. The learned counsel further submitted that A1 and the de-facto complainant are schoolmates and it is a one side love and A2 and A3, who are the mother and grandmother of A1 are no way connected with the alleged offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the de-facto complainant is a major

and the occurrence had taken place three years before lodging of this complaint and later, she was threatened by the accused with dire consequences.

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, Valliyoor 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 petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16448 of 2015 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders and the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16447 of 2015 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/- 31/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR.

2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PANAGUDI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16448 & 16447 of 2015 2P/5C Date :31/08/2015 TE/SKS-RR/SAR-I 04/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/