Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3676/2017ordered

N.Manimaran, v. The State Rep.By,

2017-03-28Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.3676 of 2017 N.MANIMARAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANNA NAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

CRIME NO.523 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.RAMU Advocate For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA, Govt. 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 A-2, in Crime No.523 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 384 and 506(i) of I.P.C and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) for the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner being an Advocate, compelled the defacto complainant to pay Rs.1,20,000/- to the first accused for the theft committed in the house of the first accused, by the wife of the defacto complainant, which was recorded in CCTV Camera. The defacto complainant also paid the said amount, but subsequently, the first accused threatened the defacto complainant.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instructions submitted that the A-1 in this case was arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Court.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the wife of the defacto complainant committed theft in A-1's

house, which was recorded in the CCTV Camera. The petitioner being an Advocate, who is also a neighbour of the defacto complainant effected settlement, by which, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- to A-1 and as per the said agreement, A-1 has to delete the CCTV footage. But, he did not do so. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence.

6. Considering the above said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. 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.VI, Madurai and on his 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 as and when required for interrogation. 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/- 28/03/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI,MADURAI.

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANNA NAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

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

+1. CC to M/S.M.RAMU Advocate SR.No.18673 PM GJM/NDD/SAR-III/05.04.2017 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3676 of 2017 Date :28/03/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/