T.S. Krishnababu v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.18701 of 2015 1 T.S. KRISHNABABU 2 RAJESH (*)3 MOHAN SINGH @ MON SINGH ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs.

STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.392/2015 ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.SARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : M/s.S.PRABHA, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 offence punishable under Sections 406, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.392 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2The case of the prosecution is that the accused have received Rs.10 lakhs from the de-facto complainant for reinstatement of his son-in-law , who had been suspended from service as Inspector of Police. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that A2 and A3 are the sons of A1 and the daughter of the de-facto complainant viz., Chithra @ Umamaheswari was married the son of the first accused viz., K.Senthil @ Rajamanikandan, who has expired on 26.07.2015 by committing suicide.

4.It is further submitted that the first accused had settled one property in favour of the daughter of the deceased K.Senthil @ Rajamanikandan, which was not accepted by the de-facto complainant and insisted the first petitioner to settle some other property which the same was not accepted by the first accused, so a false complaint has been given against the accused.

5.It is further submitted that A4 and A5 are the wives of A2 and A3/Petitioners 2 and 3 and the present complaint was given with an ulterior motive.

6.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

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

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruchendur 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 as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

9. 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/- 29/09/2015 (**)AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT DATED 30/10/2015 AND MADE IN MP(MD)NO.1/2015 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.18701/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUCHENDUR, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THOOTHUKUDI. 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUCHENDUR POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

+1. CC to M/S N.VIJAYARAJAN, Advocate SR.No.64089 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.18701 of 2015 Date :29/09/2015 PBK/NGM-SS/LIB 06/10/2015 ::2P-6C::

RL/AMF/SAR II/6C - 6/11/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/