S.Sundarraj v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) Nos.21662 and 21663 of 2016 S.SUNDARRAJ ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.21662/2016 KULANTHAISAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.21663/2016 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL SOUTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL (CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.21662/2016 M/S.D.VENKATESH, Advocate in Crl.OP(MD)No.21663/2016 For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the Petitions PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 in Crime No.not known of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners have come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.
2.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police.
3.
The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners conducted a chit, in which, the defacto complainant participated and was declared as a successful bidder, pursuant to which, she gave some of her original property documents as security and that even after payment of the entire amount, the petitioners refused to return the original documents and demanded more interest, which resulted in registration of the case.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after receipt of the loan amount, the complainant and her husband did not pay the interest and when the interest was demanded, they have given the present false complaint.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
5.
Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the investigation of the case is at the initial stage.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the defacto complainant is said to have taken Rs.40 lakhs from A1 and Rs.25 lakhs from A2 and also the fact that the defacto complainant also executed promissory note, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not necessary. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7.
Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, subject to the following conditions:
(i) each of the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned;
(ii) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 06.00p.m. until further orders for interrogation;
(iii) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (iv) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the 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]. sd/- 22/11/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.III, DINDIGUL 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL SOUTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL +1. CC to M/S.T.LENIN KUMAR Advocate SR.No.71153 +One cc to M/s. D.Venkatesh, Advocate, SR.No. 71154 RL/7C/2P/DB/SAR3/28.11.2016 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.21662 and 21663 of 2016 Date :22/11/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/