Nagajothi, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of April Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.6113 of 2018 1 NAGAJOTHI 2 MUNIASAMY 3 PAVITHRA 4 SURYA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.1,3 to 5 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM.
(CR.NO.13/2017).
... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.BABU JEGANATH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) I.P.C., in Crime No.13 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side).
3.The learned counsel for the Intervenor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He further pointed out that it is case of job racketing and many persons have been effected by this criminal activities.
4.This Court went through the F.I.R., it is seen that the transaction has been done between one Sudha and A2 namely Illayaraja. The said Illayaraja has since been arrested. He is still in custody.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners 1 and 2 are the parents of Illayaraja. The third petitioner is the sister of Illayaraja. The fourth petitioner is the friend of Illayaraja.
6.This Court went through the materials on record, it is seen that stereo typed complaint has been obtained from the six persons. That apart, on behalf of A2, notice was already issued to the local Inspector of Police. The specific allegation of the petitioners is that provoked by issuance of such notice in November 2017, the present F.I.R came to be registered.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
7.This Court is of the view that the transaction is civil in nature and was only between A2 and the defacto complainant. In any event, the same is under investigation.
8.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is 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 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties 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 daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 9.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 shall stand dismissed.
sd/- 27/04/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.R.BABU JEGANATH Advocate SR.No.7479.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6113 of 2018 Date :27/04/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ SDS/PMI/VK/08.05.2018/2P/6C