Tamilnesan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/06/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Tamilnesan ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.
(Crime No.6/2020). ... Respondent/Complainant Ravichandran ... Intervening Petition/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S. Muniyandi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.V.Malaiyendran, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.6/2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.
2. The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 120(B), 406, 499, 506(i), 384, 511 of IPC and Section 74 of Information Technology Act 2000 in Crime No.6 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant 1/3
is the Marketing Manager of a company, namely, Anil Semiya. On 13.03.2020, the defacto complainant was called through phone by unknown person stating that the product of his company is not consumable. Thereafter, the petitioner created a fake video and sent to the defacto complaint through whats app and thereafter, the petitioner demanded money from the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Further, the learned counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, would submit that without any prejudice to his rights and contentions, the petitioner is ready to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), as non-refundable compensation, by way of Demand Draft, in favour of 'The Dean, Madurai Medical College Hospital, Madurai District', for the purpose of providing facilities to the Health workers.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner is president of small Political party, he threatened the defacto complainant by demanding money. He further submitted that investigation is pending.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
(i) 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.2, Dindigul 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;
(ii) The petitioner is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only), by way of Demand Draft, in favour of 'The Dean, Madurai Medical College Hospital, Madurai', on or before 30.06.2020, for the purpose of providing facilities to the Health workers, as non-refundable compensation, without prejudice his rights, since the Health workers put their lives at risk every day and play a critical role in preventing the spread of COVID-19 Pandemic;
(iii) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required, for interrogation.
(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid 2/3
conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and (v) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
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 shall stand dismissed.
8.The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.
sd/- 17/06/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.II, DINDIGUL.
2. -DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.
4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
COPY TO:- THE DEAN, MADURAI MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6154 of 2020 Date :17/06/2020 RMK TE/VR/SAR-II : 19/06/2020 : 3P/6C 3/3