Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/5510/2017ordered

Mohamad Rabi, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2017-04-28Honourable Mrs Justice J. Nisha Banu2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Eighth day of April Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.5510 of 2017 MOHAMAD RABI, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.1 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI.

(REF:CRIME NO.24 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.SAMUEL GUNASINGH 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-1, in Crime No.24 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 212, 406, 420, 468 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 defacto complainant is said to have bought loan by pledging his gold jewels from the petitioner herein and when he asked for return of the jewels, the petitioner is said to have threatened him and thereby committed the offence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a false complaint has been lodged against the petitioner to settle the money dispute and the co-accused have been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 5304 of 2017.

5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent on instructions submitted that the petitioner and the defacto complainant are neighbours and there is money dispute between them.

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

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the case is of the year 2015 and coaccused have been granted anticipatory bail, 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.I, Thoothukudi 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 daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter 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/- 28/04/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TUTICORIN DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI.

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

+1. CC to M/S.P.SAMUEL GUNASINGH Advocate SR.No.21564

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.5510 of 2017 Date :28/04/2017 SMA/CM-MSA/SAR-4/03.05.2017:2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/