Murugan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.546 of 2015 MURUGAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

CR. NO. 35 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.J.JEYAKUMARAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 417, 420, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.35 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the defacto complainant is that the defacto complainant started Cable TV Network in the name and style of Classic Cable System in the year 1994. The petitioner joined with Classic Cable System as a partner and they were running the network together. But the license stood in the name of the defacto complaint. In the year 2000, the petitioner/accused had registered the same as Star Cable TV Network and had departed from the defacto complainant. While so, it is alleged by the defacto complainant that the petitioner/accused was paying monthly repayment of Rs.8,000/- to the defacto complaint which he had fail to keep up. Under such circumstances, this complaint has been filed. On a reading of the compliant it appears to be contractual in nature. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Tirunelveli, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ [b] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[d] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

sd/- 27/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, TIRUNELVELI.

2.

-DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.J.JEYAKUMARAN Advocate SR.No. 3529 SR : 30.01.2015 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.546 of 2015 Date :27/01/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/