Eswari v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.9779 of 2017 ESWARI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE E.O.W-II, TRICHY, (CR.NO.1/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 5 of TNPID Act and Sections 406, 420 and 120-B of I.P.C., in Crime No. 1 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the wife of A1 and they were running a business in the name and style of GMG Real Estate and the petitioner is one of the partner in the above said company. Based on the attractive words of the petitioner and her husband, the defacto complainant and other persons invested their hard earn money in the real estate company but the petitioner and her husband did not repay the amount to the defacto complainant and other persons. Thereafter one of the aggrieved person / defacto complainant filed a complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that A1 was already released on bail. The petitioner is a lady and blessed with a male child and she is now mother feeding. The petitioner did not involve in the above said business activities. She is only a sleeping partner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that he did not dispute the facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Special Court for TNPID Act cases, Madurai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(i) the petitioner shall report before the investigation officer, weekly twice i.e., every Monday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., until further orders.

(ii) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial. (iii) the petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail;

(iv) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law and the anticipatory bail granted stands cancelled automatically.

sd/- 15/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDGE, THE SPECIAL COURT FOR TNPID ACT CASES, MADURAI. 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, E.O.W-II, TRICHY.

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

+1. CC to M/S.D.RAMESHKUMAR Advocate SR.No.34471

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9779 of 2017 Date :15/11/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MKV-PM-PN-SAR 3/21.11.2017/2P-5C