Seeniraj, S/O.Kanagaraj, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of November Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.19239 of 2018 SEENIRAJ ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.4 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
CRIME NO.5/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : MR.A.JOSEPH JERRY Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 420 and 120B of IPC., in Crime No.05 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner / A4, who was working as a private appraiser in a Bank, along with the Manager of the Bank had colluded together and had given an appraisal report knowing that the jewels pledged were not of standard quality of gold, thereby, they misappropriated a sum of Rs.14,00,000/-.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a private appraiser and used to attend the work of the defacto complainant to appraise the jewels, which are pledged for the gold loans. He further submits that entire amount due to the Bank has been settled by the employees of the Bank. Except the petitioner, the other co-accused had already been granted bail in the year 2016 itself.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that there are totally six accused in this case and the petitioner is A4. The petitioner along with Bank Manager had colluded together and had given an appraisal report knowing that the jewels pledged were not of standard quality of gold and thereby, they misappropriated nearly a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. Out of which, a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- had been settled and there are some more amounts to be settled. He further submits that co-accused had already been granted bail in the year 2016 itself.
5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- had been settled and the co-accused had already been granted bail in the year 2016 itself, this Court deems it fit to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Viruthunagar, on condition that 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before respondent Police daily between 10.00 a.m., and 11.00 a.m., until further orders, for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.
7. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 08/11/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUTHUNAGAR.
2 -DO- THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUTHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.A.JOSEPH JERRY Advocate SR.No. 21271
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.19239 of 2018 Date :08/11/2018 JM/RR/SAR 2/14.11.2018/3P/6C