Muruganandam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27/09/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI Muruganandam ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Dindigul District Crime No.17 of 2021 ....Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.BALAJI, Advocate for Mr.T.LOGAIYASAMY, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.T.SENTHILKUMAR Additional Public Prosecutor(crl.side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who was arrested on 10.08.2021 for the offence under Sections 420, 466, 468, 473 r/w 120-B I.P.C, in Crime.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused has introduced himself as an Advocate and told that he has good rapport with District Judges and therefore, he can able to get employment in Courts for illegal gratification and received a sum of Rs.22,25,000/- from the defacto complainant and others and cheated them. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this petitioner is the father of the first accused. The respondent police arrested the petitioner and recovered a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- from him. The first accused is in the habit of committing the offence and the petitioner has nothing to do with the first accused. He sent him out of his house and the first accused has executed a relinquishment deed in the year 2014 and a public notice was also 1/3

issued by the petitioner in the month of March-2021. He would further submit that the petitioner is a tailor by profession and also doing finance business. The respondent police have recovered the money from the petitioner's house, as if the amount has been collected from the victims. The petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is inside the jail from 10.08.2021 and hence, he seeks for grant of bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that this petitioner is the father of the first accused and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- was recovered from him and the investigation reveals that all the victims have paid money to the first accused.

5.Though the offence committed by the first accused is very serious in nature, he was released on statutory bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the relinquishment deed executed by the first accused in the year 2014 and also produced the paper publication made on behalf of the petitioner in the month of March-2021.

6.Considering those documents and the fact that there is no linking material as against the petitioner except the recovery of money and also the period of incarceration, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul and on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhaar card or bank pass book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily twice, ie. at 10.30 a.m and 05.30 p.m until further orders. [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with the 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 petitioners 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]. 2/3

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 27/09/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

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.

TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II DINDIGUL.

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3.THE OFFICER INCHARGE DISTRICT PRISON, DINDIGUL 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH DINDIGUL DISTRICT 5.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13848 of 2021 Date :27/09/2021 SA/PN/SAR.3/27.09.2021/3P/6C 3/3