Elangovan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.9151 of 2015 1 ELANGOVAN 2 MEENAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED no.1 & 2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARANTHANGAI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. CR. NO.181/2015. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.K.BAALASUNDHARAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.181 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 342, 294(b), 353 and 506(i) IPC and seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was working as a land surveyor in Aranthangi Municipality and on 23.04.2015 the accused had kept him under illegal detention and threatened with dire consequences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the second petitioner is the chairman of Aranthangi Municipality while the first petitioner is her husband. The second petitioner had received many complaints against the defacto complainant and therefore, she has advised him to do his duty property and on the basis of the complaints, the commissioner has requested the District Collector to transfer the defacto complainant to some other place. Due to which, a false complaint is given implicating the petitioners in this case.
4. Per contra, Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthick, learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed this petition stating that the first petitioner has misused the official position of the second petitioner and he was demanding illegal gratification from the officials of the Municipality and on 23.04.2015 the defacto complainant and one another Surveyor were kept under illegal confinement for more than five hours and they were rescued at the intervention of the Tahsildar of Aranthangi Municipality. It is further submitted that the petitioners are influential persons and if they are granted anticipatory bail, they will interfered with the investigation and tamper the witnesses. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5. Heard the learned Government Advocate (crl. Side).
6. Considering the nature of allegations made against these petitioners, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their 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 Judicial Magistrate, Aranthangi, Pudukkottai District and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition 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/- 02/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ARANTHANGI 2 -DO-THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARANTHANGAI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.K.BAALASUNDHARAM Advocate SR.No.27281 +1cc to M/S.M.S.JEYAKARTHIK, Advocate in SR.No. 27108 Sm:04.06.2015:2P/7C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9151 of 2015 Date :02/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/