S.Sridhar @ Sreethar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 04/01/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN S.Sridhar @ Sreethar, ... Petitioners/Accused No.6 Vs The State Rep. by , The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dindigul District.
Cr.No.31 of 2017.
... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Sarvagan Prabhu,Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 31 of 2017 on the file of the Respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120 (B), 420, 465, 468, 471 IPC, in Crime No.31 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused, who is the son of defacto complainant's brother, in connivance with the other accused persons, fraudulently forged revenue documents in respect of property belonged to the defacto complainant and executed sale deed in favour of third accused on 25.09.2017. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is only the document writer and 1/3
he has not played any role in the alleged offence. Co-accused were already enlarged on bail. Hence, prays to release him on anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the co-accused ie., A1, A2, A3 and A4 were enlarged on bail in the year 2018 and that the petitioner is the document writer.
5.Reading of FIR shows that the accused persons had forged the revenue documents and executed sale deed. The petitioner seems to be a document writer. Except that, there is no allegation to the fact that this petitioner has also involved in the forgery of documents. 6.Considering the facts that the petitioner has played limited role in the above said crime, that the co-accused, who are the prime accused in this case, were already enlarged on bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Anti Land Grabbing Special Court, Madurai District and on his 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 the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of 30 days and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.
sd/- 04/01/2022 / TRUE COPY / / /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
PNM Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ANTI LAND GRABBING SPECIAL COURT, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2 DO THROUGH:
THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, DINDIGUL.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.13483 of 2021 Date :04/01/2022 PKP/JM/SAR-3/07.01.2022/3P/5C 3/3