P.S. Rengarajan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22486 of 2015 1 P.S. RENGARAJAN 2 T. MARIAPPAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2&3 Vs 1 STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.
(CR NO.492/2015) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 JEYARANI ...2nd RESPONDENT/ DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN Govt. 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 Accused Nos.2 and 3, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 442, 506(ii) and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.492 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons are the Partners of M/s.Veisa Technologies and they are also involved in the business of I.T. enabled services viz., Data Entry, Image Capturing for Voter I.D., Family Card, Aadhar Card, since 1997. The de-facto complainant had participated in the Socio-Economic Caste Census taken by M/s.Veisa Technologies and supplied manpower viz., Data Entry Operators, for the survey to the Concern. She was paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- for the work done by her and the accused persons had failed to pay the balance amount of Rs.77,00,000/- and three identifiable persons had threatened the de-facto complainant at the instigation of A1/Saravanan.
3. The case of the petitioners is that during October 2013, the defacto complainant has given a complaint before the Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichy, demanding a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, as commission. After due enquiry, it was closed as mistake of fact. Thereafter, a complaint dated 20.03.2015, was lodged before the District Crime Branch, Trichy. The de-facto complainant filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.11916 of 2015 before this Court, for registration of F.I.R. on the said complaint. This Court referred the matter to the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre attached to this Bench, to explore the possibility of settlement. The de-facto complainant did not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre. When the earlier Original Petition is pending before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, suppressing the same, she has given another complaint to the respondent police stating that the accused persons are threatening her.
4. 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 and they are falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that, already this Court, by order dated 30.10.2015, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17955 of 2015, granted anticipatory bail to A1. He also submitted that the wife of the second petitioner died two weeks before and his personal appearance may be dispensed with.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the de-facto complainant is a widow and the accused persons did not pay the amount for the work done by her.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the co-accused/A1 has been granted relief of anticipatory bail by this Court, in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.17955 of 2015, dated 30.10.2015, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai, Sivagangai District, 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 as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
8. 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/- 27/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DEVAKOTTAI, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DEVAKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.68072
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22486 of 2015 Date :27/11/2015 NS/PM-MP/SAR II/01.12.2015 : 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/