B.Sudharsan @ Saravanakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.8277 of 2017 1 B.SUDHARSAN @ SARAVANAKUMAR 2 V.P.BACKIANANTHAN 3 B.RAMALAKSHMI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI, CRIME NO.53 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For petitioners : M/S.BABU RAJENDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused in Crime No.53 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 406, 294(b) and 506(1) of I.P.C., seek anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State. 3.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier, the petitioners have filed an application for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6555 of 2017, where the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was no petition or FIR pending against the petitioners and hence, the said anticipatory application was dismissed. However, immediately, thereafter, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioners in crime No.53 of 2017 for the offences stated above.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on the date of filing of the earlier application, no complaint has been registered against the petitioners and subsequently, the defacto complainant has given complaint and on that basis only, the present complaint has been registered.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.It is very unfortunate case that after reporting that there was no FIR and no petition is pending against the petitioners, a case

has been registered against the same petitioners. Even, if the defacto complainant has given any complaint, nothing prevented the respondent police for calling upon the petitioners for an enquiry as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, they have simply registered the case against the petitioners and this attitude of the respondent is very unfortunate.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirumangalam and on their 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police as when necessary for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 7.The petitioners 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/- 30/06/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DISTRICT 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALL WOMEN POLICE STATION, THIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI, 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.BABU RAJENDRAN Advocate SR.No.25537

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8277 of 2017 Date :30/06/2017 SKM/ARUL SVA/CM/MSA/06.07.2017/SAR2/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/