Ponnuvelusamy v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Third day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.5451 of 2015 PONNUVELUSAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED 1 Vs STAET REP BY 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGULAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015 2.(*)THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTUR TOWN POLICE STATION VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015 (R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS COURT' DT.23.04.2015 AND MADE IN MP(MD)NO.1 OF 2015 IN CRL OP(MD).NO.5451 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.SOLAISAMY Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI Government 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 A1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420 of I.P.C, in Crime No.265 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that one Rajammal had deposited her amount of Rs.6,50,000/- in the account of the first accused and on his assurance, she would get more money, subsequently she received only Rs.36,600/- and the balance amount was not paid to her.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the second accused and the complainant had deposited the amount in the company viz., M/s. Pro Rich Developers and the petitioner is not responsible for the transaction. He further submitted that the de-facto complainant deposited the amount in his account on 20.03.2014 and immediately the amount was transferred in the name of Company on 21.03.2015 and thereafter, the company had issued loan agreement dated 14.04.2014 accepting to repay the amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

within a period of two years. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the de-facto complainant, on the assurance given by the accused, has deposited her money, but the amount was not repaid. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur 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 07.00 p.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/- 23/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.II, SATTUR 2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTTUR 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALANGULAM POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATTUR TOWN POLICE STATION VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 5 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1CC TO MR.M.SOLAISAMY,ADVOCATE, SR.NO.21885

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5451 of 2015 Date :23/04/2015 NA/07/05/2015/P2/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/