Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3891/2017disposed of

M.Ruben v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-04-05Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.3891 of 2017 1 M.RUBEN 2 C.CHANDRAKALA RUBEN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT (CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2017) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent :M/S S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S K.P.NARYANAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 417, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.Not Known of 2017 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent/State.

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) on instructions would submit that no F.I.R is registered and no F.I.R is pending against the petitioners, but the petition enquiry alone is pending and alleged threat of arrest is not true, at this stage. The second petitioner alone is appearing before the respondent Police and that the first petitioner did not co-operate with enquiry.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that the petitioners may be directed to co-operate with enquiry. 5.However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the police is harassing the petitioners during enquiry.

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

6. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with an observation that the respondent police should not harass the petitioners during the enquiry. The respondent police is directed to either register a case or close the enquiry, as expeditiously as possible. The first petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent Police and co-operate with enquiry.

sd/- 05/04/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.19660 +1CC TO M/S K.P.NARYANAKUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR NO.19478

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3891 of 2017 Date :05/04/2017 MS/BS/SAR.2/10.04.2017/2P.5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/