N.Saraswathi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of August Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU CRL OP(MD) No.9087 of 2017 1 N.SARASWATHI 2 N.MURUGANANTHAM 3 N.MANICKAM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO.34/2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.ANANTH C.RAJESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A3, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120-B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.34 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the 1st petitioner is the mother of the petitioners 2 and 3 and the de-facto complainant and due to property dispute between the family members, the petitioners have criminally intimated the de-facto complainant. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and due to property dispute between the petitioners and the de-facto complainant, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is further submitted that before registering the case, the petitioners filed anticipatory bail petition before this court in Crl.O.P(MD)No.21366 of 2016 and the matter was referred to mediation and conciliation attached to this Bench for mediation, but the de-facto complainant has not appeared and after registration of the case in Crime No.34 of 2016, Crl.O.P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(MD)No.21366 of 2016 has been withdrawn and now, the present petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor would submit that due to property dispute, this case has been registered against the petitioners and the investigation is going on. 5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani and on each of them 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 1st petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required and the petitioners 2 and 3 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m until further orders. 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 shall stand automatically dismissed.

sd/- 01/08/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PALANI, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.ANANTH C.RAJESH Advocate SR.No.27822 ER CSL/RR-BS/SAR-I/09.08.2017 : 2P/6C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9087 of 2017 Date :01/08/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/