G.Ponraj, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Second day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.597 of 2018 G.PONRAJ, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIVAIKUNDAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.402 OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.R.ANBARASU Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused No.1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 342, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 406 of I.P.C., in Crime No.402 of 2017, seeking relief to grant of anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his brother-in-law purchased pigs from the petitioner/first accused, who is running big farm at Meenakshi Patti for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, for which, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- and promised to pay the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- from his bank account.
Being not agreed with the request of the defacto complainant, the petitioner and others threatened the defacto complainant that they would not permit them to go out without settling the amount due to him. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted the petitioner was running a pig farm for the past 18 years, wherein the defacto complainant is a customer and liable to settle a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the purchase of pigs. In fact, on 30.12.2017, the petitioner demanded the defacto complainant in order to settle the balance amount from Thirupathy, for which, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint and the petitioner never received a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- as alleged in the FIR.
He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner is not having any previous case. Accordingly to him investigation is pending.
5. Considering the submissions made on either side, it disclose that the offences under Sections 342, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) and 406 of I.P.C., in Crime No.402 of 2017 has been registered against the petitioner. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the petitioner and two other accused in this case wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant in order to recover the amount. Therefore, the custodial interrogation is not necessary for completing the investigation. The alleged offence was happened only in the course of business transaction. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.
Accordingly, he is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Srivaikundam, Thoothukudi Distirct, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of one month and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.
(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
(iii) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled and the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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/- 22/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SRIVAIKUNDAM, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT 2 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SRIVAIKUNDAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.S.R.ANBARASU Advocate SR.No.1193
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.597 of 2018 Date :22/01/2018 SMA/RR-CSL/SAR-3/29.01.2018:3P/6c