Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/16692/2015disposed of

Subramani v. The State By Inspe Of Police

2015-09-07Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Seventh day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) Nos.16692 and 16461 of 2015 SUBRAMANI ... PETITIONER / A1 in CRL OP(MD) No.16692 of 2015 I.PEER MOHIDEEN ... PETITIONER/2nd ACCUSED in CRL OP(MD) No.16461 of 2015 Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUDHAMALLI POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI (CRIME NO 154/2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT in CRL OP(MD) No.16692 of 2015 THE STATE OF TAMILNADU REPRESENTED BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUDHAMALLI POLICE STATION TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT (CRIME NO 154/2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT in CRL OP(MD) No.16461 of 2015 For Petitioner : M/S S.SATHYA CHIDAMBARAM Advocate in CRL OP(MD) No.16692 of 2015 M/s.M.P.

PADMAVATHY, Advocate in CRL OP(MD) No.16461 of 2015 For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. 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 petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16692 of 2015, who is arrayed as Accused No.1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act in Crime No.154 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

2. The petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.16461 of 2015, who is arrayed as Accused No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act in Crime No.154 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the first accused has sold the property of the defacto complainant to the second accused, without having any right over the same.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Accused No.1 submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/second accused submitted that her client is ready to cancel the sale deed, provided the first accused returns the sale consideration of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the second accused is having four previous cases in similar nature in Crime Nos.112 of 2011, 282 & 310 of 2013 and 48 of 2015 apart from the present case. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the first accused without having any right over the property has sold to the second accused and therefore, both are not entitled for anticipatory bail.

7. Considering the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

sd/- 07/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUDHAMALLI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI 2 THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE SUDHAMALLI POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.16692 & 16461 of 2015 Date :07/09/2015 RG.10.09.2015/AAL/MPA/SAR-II 2P/4C.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/