Hasan Aliyar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.7149 of 2017 HASAN ALIYAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO.4/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. RM. ARUNSWAMINATHAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For Intervenor : Mr.D.Balamurugapandian, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 294 (b), 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.4 of 2017 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner cheated the de facto complainant and made life threat in a public place. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner and the de facto complainant are doing real estate business. In this jucture, the de facto complainant approached the petitioner for financial assistance to purchase the property in Survey Nos.6/1B, 6/3B, 6/4, 7/3, 9/7A to an extent of 7 acre 44 cents in Perungullam group, Nathipalam, Ramanathapuram District. Accordingly, the petitioner had given a blank cheque to the de facto complainant for security purpose to the seller. Then as per repeated request made by the petitioner, the blank cheques have not been handed over to the petitioner. Subsequently, the de facto complainant gave a complaint before the respondent police in order to grab the money from the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent Police on instruction would submit that there was money dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant, for which, the defacto complainant already initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and the investigation is pending. 5.Having regard to the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioner and considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), that the defacto complainant already initiated proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act by issuing a legal notice and considering the gravity of the offence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.

(i) the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police as and when required for the purpose of investigation.

(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii) the petitioner shall make themselves available for interrogation including custodial interrogation as and when required;

(iv) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 03/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM 2 -DO-THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.D.BALAMURUGAPANDI Advocate SR.No.31997

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7149 of 2017 Date :03/10/2017 SM:PM-PN:SAR 2:6.10.2017:3P/6C