Panneerselvam 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.22687 of 2015 1 PANNEERSELVAM 2 ARUMUGAM 3 RAMAN ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ILUPPUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S G.MATHAVAN 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, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.Not known of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused quarrelled with the defacto complainant with regard to partition of joint family properties and hence, the defacto complainant has given a complaint against this petitioners and others and on her complaint, the respondent police pressurising the petitioners to appear before the respondent police for enquiry. 3.The case of the petitioners is that the defacto complainant is the brother's wife of the petitioner. Already partition was effected with the family members before the elders. But the defacto complainant not being satisfied with the partition and the share allotted to her husband, she has given a false complaint against the petitioners and others before the respondent police.
Before the respondent police, the defacto complainant demanded to settle all the loans in her name and her husband name. The petitioners are no way connected with the said loan. Hence, they refused to settle the amount, for which, the defacto complainant influenced the police officials to register the case against the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the investigation is pending.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Keeranur 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 police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. 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/- 01/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF-CUM-JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KEERANUR. 2 DOR THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,PUDUKOTTAI. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ILUPPUR POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S G.MATHAVAN Advocate SR.No.68747
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.22687 of 2015 Date :01/12/2015 RG.DP/JGB/SAR-I 02.12.2015 2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/