Selvakumari v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.21617 of 2015 SELVAKUMARI ... PETITIONER/1ST ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THATTARMADAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.287 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S M.SARAVANAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : No Appearance PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, in Crime No.287 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 467, 417, 420, 120(b) I.P.C. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant purchased the property from the husband of the petitioner. When he approached for change of name in the record, he was informed that notice has been received that the suit is pending with regard to the property in question and refused to change the name of the defacto complainant. Hence, the defacto complainant has given a complaint and a case has been registered.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is innocent and she is nothing to do with the offence as alleged by the prosecution and her name is falsely implicated in this case. The property belongs to her father-in-law and the petitioner is having two children. Her husband would not have sold the property to the defacto complainant. The petitioner, for filing a case, handed over the papers to her Advocate, who has been arrayed as A.3 and her Advocate issued notice.
4. Last hearing also, there was no representation for the defacto complainant and today also there is no representation for the defacto complainant.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that without filing any suit, the petitioner has wrongly sent a notice along with a copy of the plaint.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that notice has been issued by the Advocate of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathankulam and on her 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.
7.The petitioner 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/- 01/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SATHANKULAM 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THATTARMADAM POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.M.SARAVANAN, Advocate SR.No.68552 RL/6C/AAL/MPA/SARI/4/12/2015
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21617 of 2015 Date :01/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/