Syed Anwar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth day of August Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.18893 of 2014 1.
SYED ANWAR 2.
SHAJATHI BEGHAM ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.GANDHI Advocate For Respondent : MRS.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 and A2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.40 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.According to the de-facto complainant namely Seeni Mohammed that the accused by giving promise to induct him as one of the partners in Alliance Expert Courier and Cargo Private Limited, received Rs.3,90,000/-, but failed to keep up their words. 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 the petitioners are husband and wife and A1 was a Director in the Alliance Expert Courier and Cargo Private Limited and he resigned from that post in the year 2012 and started another Courier company called 'Non-Stop Courier' and with a view to stall his business, the present complaint is given against the accused.
The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioners have nothing to do with the company called 'Alliance Expert Courier and Cargo Private Limited' and they have been falsely implicated in this case with an ulterior motive. It is further submitted that even as per the complaint, the de-facto complainant issued a cheque in favour of the company and not in the name of the accused. The learned counsel has produced the Articles of Association obtained from the Registrar of Companies showing that the first petitioner is not a Director in the Alliance Expert Courier and Cargo Private Limited.
4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.
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 No.II, Ramanathapuram 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. 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/- 25/08/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2.
THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, RAMANATHAPURAM.
3.
-DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.R.GANDHI Advocate SR.No.49096
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.18893 of 2014 Date :25/08/2015 3P/6C: SH/AMF/LIB : 01.09.2015