C.Murugesan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twentieth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.21892 and 21893 of 2015 C.MURUGESAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)NO.21892&21893 OF 2015 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THUCKALAY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT (Crime No.408/2015 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.21892/2015) (Crime NO.409/2015 in Crl.O.P(MD)No.21893/2015) For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR Advocate IN BOTH PETITIONS For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused in Crime Nos.
408 and 409 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 379(NP) of I.P.C and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21892 of 2015 is that on 09.05.2015 the de-facto complainant parked his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 74 4413 in the parking area of Advocate Bar Association and subsequently, it was found missing and the value of the vehicle is Rs.80,000/- and therefore, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner.
3.The case of the prosecution in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.21893 of 2015 is that on 09.05.2015 the de-facto complainant parked his vehicle bearing Registration No.MH 02AA 2342 in the parking area of Advocate Bar Association and subsequently, it was found missing and the value of the vehicle is Rs.15,000/- and therefore, the de-facto complainant gave a complaint against the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are advocate by profession and both are practicing Advocates in Padmanabhapuram Court and due to the motive with regard to conduct the election in the Advocate Bar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Association, the de-facto complainant gave a complainant against the petitioner. He further submitted that the co-accused had already been released on anticipatory bail by this Court.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on instruction would submit that the both the vehicles were recovered and the petitioner has no bad antecedent.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Eraniel and on 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 as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 8.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/- 20/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ERANIEL 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THUCKALAY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to Mr. K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.66698 +1cc to Mr.K.P.NARAYANAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.66697
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.21892 & 21893 of 2015 Date :20/11/2015 NS/SKS-RR/SAR I/24.11.2015 : 2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/