P.G. Karuppanna Raja v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.418 of 2016 P.G. KARUPPANNA RAJA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL TOWN POLICE STATION (WEST), DINDIGUL. IN CRIME NO. 636/2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.NATESH RAJA Advocate For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Government 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.3, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 341, 294-B, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.
636 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 requested the defacto complainant to lend money for their business purpose. On their request, the defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs.5,90,000/- to the account of A1 and a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid and received by A1 to A3. When the same was demanded by the defacto complainant, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences.
3.The case of the petitioner is that this petitioner is arrayed as A3 and he is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner never borrowed any money from the defacto complainant. A1 used to borrow money from various third party and never return the same. Due to his wayward life, the petitioner and his family members do not have any contact with A1. The petitioner is working as Head of Department in an Enginerring College at Dindigul. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner has borrowed a sum of Rs.9,40,000/- from the defacto complainant and when the same was questioned by him, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul and on 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 petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily evening at 05.00 p.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.
6. The petitioner 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/- 21/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, DINDIGUL.
2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DINDIGUL TOWN POLICE STATION (WEST), DINDIGUL. +1. CC to M/S S.NATESH RAJA Advocate SR.No.3659. TS/28.01.2016/2P-6C/PM-MP/ARI
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.418 of 2016 Date :21/01/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/