Veerabagu v. The Deputy Superintendent

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of September Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.V.MURALIDARAN CRL OP(MD) No.13325 of 2017 1 VEERABAGU 2 GANAPATHY 3 SUGUMAR 4 SAROJA 5 SARAVANAKUMARI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1-5 Vs 1 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B-2, BAZAR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM. RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.Veerakathiravan, Senior Counsel for M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners / accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Section 420 I.P.C, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that 1st respondent informed the petitioners that the defacto complainant Madan Kumar, native of Karur District is said to have given a complaint that he paid Rs.5 crores for doing Real Estate business and the said amount was not repaid.

Hence he is alleged to have given a criminal complaint. 3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that 5 police personnel from 1st respondent came to the house of the petitioners on 24.09.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., in the civil dress claiming that they are working in police department, wanted the petitioners to appear before the 1st respondent and also to appear before the Court in furtherance of a complaint made by the defacto complainant one Madan Kumar. The said police personnel took only the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

petitioners 1 and 2 herein, they were kept in the custody of 1st respondent on 24.09.2017, then compelled to appear before the 1st respondent.

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is yet to be completed and hence, he opposed for granting anticipatory bail.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioners herein shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties 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 the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously. 7.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/- 28/09/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 2 -do-thro THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE B-2, BAZAR POLICE STATION, RAMANATHAPURAM.

5 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.31910

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13325 of 2017 Date :28/09/2017 SM:PM-PN:SAR I:28.9.2017:2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/