Ramachandran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifth day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22825 of 2015 RAMACHANDRAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 Vs 1 STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PUTTHANATHAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT,CR NO.298 OF 2015.

... 1ST RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 CHINNAKARUKPPAN ...2ND RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S AN.RAMANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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.4, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.298 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A4 and other accused informed the defacto complainant that they have a Iridium pot, which will bring Iswaryam and cost of the said pot is Rs.50,00,000/-. On 25.11.2015, the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1,001/- as advance to A1 to A3. A1 to A3 asked the defacto complainant to come to Kanoothu Bus Stand. Accordingly, the defacto complainant went to the spot but they did not hand over the Iridium Pot. When the defacto complainant demanded the advance amount, they have threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that A1 to A3 were arrested and remanded to judicial custody and on their

confession, the petitioner was added as A4. The respondent police seized Brass Pongal Pot, Flower Jaadi and cash Rs.1,000/- and the investigation is pending. If the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation.

5.From the materials it is seen that the defacto complainant has not made any allegation against the petitioner. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the properties were recovered from A1 to A3 and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, 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 his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai 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 daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. 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/- 05/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,MANAPPARAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,TRICHY 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PUTTHANATHAM POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT 4 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S AN.RAMANATHAN Advocate SR.No.1341

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22825 of 2015 Date :05/01/2016 am AA/SKS-RR/SAR-II/11.01.2016/2p-6c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/