Anandhavalli v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.20522 of 2018 ANANDHAVALLI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI-2.

CRIME NO.2032 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.M.SEENISULTHAN, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) 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 and 420 of IPC in Cr.No.2032 of 2018 seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the wife of the defacto complainant. The petitioner is alleged to have immoral relationship with A1 and the petitioner spent money of the defacto complainant to A1 to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- and 45 sovereigns of gold jewels.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offence.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that he is not aware of the settlement.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that the defacto complainant and the petitioner appeared before the respondent police and stated that A1 had received the money and jewels from the defacto complainant and inview of the same petition is closed. He has also produced the copy of the receipt. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions by learned counsels and that amount and jewels has been settled, this Court inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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.II, Madurai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fail to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] 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 as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]. [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 30/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI-2.

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

+1. CC to MR.M.SEENISULTHAN Advocate SR.No.1841 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20522 of 2018 Date :30/01/2019 MS/VR/SAR-2/06.02.2019/2P.6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/