S.Siva v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twelfth day of February Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.19914 of 2014 1 S.SIVA 2 M.CHELLAPPAN 3 K.PARAMASIVAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, TRICHY DISTRICT.

CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2014,. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT SERVANTS COOPERATIVE BUILDING SOCIETY, HAVING OFFICE AT, 167-SUNDARAJA NAGAR, REP BY ITS SECRETARY, T.GANAGURU, S/O THANGAMUTHU ... INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S.S.KARTHICK Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR. S.CHELLAPANDIAN Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the Intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. On 29.01.2015, this Court granted interim anticipatory bail to these petitioners with a direction to them to appear before the respondent police and co-operate with the investigation for two weeks. Today, the respondent Police have filed a detailed status report, in which they have stated that these petitioners have not complied with the order of this Court. In Paragraph No.6 of the status report, it is stated as follows:

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

"6. It is submitted that in the meantime I understand that this Hon'ble court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner and directed them to appear before the respondent police through order dated 29.1.15. I also learnt that order copy was dispatched on 2.2.15, but so far the petitioner was not present himself before the respondent for the enquiry. Further some other cases in similar nature were also pending against the proposed accused, therefore, granting anticipatory bail at this stage would cause severe damage to the pending enquiry. The respondent believe release of the accused would result in tampering of documents and evidences essential for constructing the criminal case."

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petition. The permission is declined in view of the reason that this Court granted the relief of interim anticipatory bail to the petitioners and they have not complied with the orders of this Court.

5. In view of the serious nature of the allegations levelled against these petitioners and also taking into consideration the involvement of these petitioner in similar cases, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 12/02/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL CELL, TRICHY DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1cc to Mr.S.Chellapandian ,Advocate Sr.No.6657

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19914 of 2014 Date :12/02/2015 AA/18.02.2015/2p- 4c/ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/