Ganesh v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.19568 of 2015 1 GANESH 2 JEGAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAVALAKURICHI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 358 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S P.M. VISHNUVARATHANAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused, in Crime No.358 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.09.2015, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., and hence, seek bail.

2.According to the de-facto complainant, he was, a former Secretary of District Bar Association of Nagercoil and he attended for an enquiry before the Superintendent of Police, Nagercoil on 23.09.2015 for the complaint given by the accused against 7 persons and at the time, the accused represented that the first petitioner is a practicing advocate at High Court, but it was found to be false and thereby cheated the de-facto complainant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police against 7 persons for theft of four goats and for enquiry the de-facto complainant and two others appeared and threatened the petitiners and therefore, a wordy quarrel arose between them and thereafter, he lodged a false complaint against the petitioners. 5.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State.

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

6.It is represented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the de-facto complainant is a practicing advocate at Nagercoil and they could not furnish the surety before the Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and hence, they wants to produce the surety before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their 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 Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. sd/- 09/10/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VALLIYOOR.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI.

3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAVALAKURICHI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

5 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB-JAIL , NAGERCOIL.

+1. CC to M/S P.M. VISHNUVARATHANAN Advocate SR.No.59878

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19568 of 2015 Date :09/10/2015 rg.09.10.2015/SK/SKN/SAR-II 2P/7C.

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