Saravanakumar v. State Tnadu Rep Ins Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.16597 of 2015 1 SARAVANAKUMAR 2 NACHAN @ KRISHNAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED Nos.1 & 2 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Y.OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION Y.OTHAKADAI, MADURAI CRIME NO 420 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.TITUS Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.S.VELLAISAMY, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in Crime No.420 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 109, 294(b), 420 and 506(i) IPC and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.04.2015, the petitioners mortgaged the properties of the defacto complainant and had taken away 10 sovereigns of jewels and bank pass book. When the defacto complainant has requested to return the jewels, the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant and used filthy language.
3. The case of the petitioner is that the first petitioner is the son of the defacto complainant.The father of the defacto complainant and grand father of the first petitioner Natarajan during his life time in the year 2001 executed a Will in favour of his wife Ramuammal, the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant left the house and lived a wavering life separately. The first petitioner took care of grand mother Ramu Ammal and lived with his wife and children. The defacto complainant, at the instigation of first petitioner's sister Muthukumari and her third husband Subramanian, has given a false complaint.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that investigation is pending and the defacto complainant is the mother of the first petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and nature of offences, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District 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 daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.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/- 19/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MELUR, MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MADURAI 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Y.OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION,Y.OTHAKADAI,MADURAI 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.16597 of 2015 Date :19/11/2015 AA/DP-JGB/SAR-II/24.11.2015/2p-5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/