T.Bagavathiappan v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 05/01/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.T.Bagavathiappan 2.Stanley @ Algi Stanley ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 Vs The State rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Anjugramam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.
Crime No.560 of 2020 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.V.Chandrasekaran, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.560 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 342, 294(b), 364(A) and 506(ii) of IPC seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Sathishkumar lodged a complaint to the respondent on 17.12.2020 stating that the first petitioner was having a poultry shed in the Valliyor Panchayat Union and the defacto complainant has taken the poultry shed for rent and he had also paid an advance of Rs.3,00,000/- and he agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 13,750/- and he has paid a sum of Rs.1,65,000/- as rent for one year. These payments were made in the month of July 2020. The tenancy agreement was also entered between the defacto complainant and the first 1/5
petitioner on 10.07.2020. The defacto complainant started purchasing chicks and he could not rear it as planned. Finally on 12.09.2020 poultry business was closed, due to which he suffered a loss of Rs.75,000/-. Thereafter the defacto complainant explained the first petitioner about his difficulties in continuing with the business and cancelled the lease and tenancy agreement, the lease agreement was cancelled and the first petitioner agreed to pay Rs.3,35,000/- to the defacto complainant within two months and the first petitioner also promised to hand over cheques. After 30 days of the lease period the first petitioner failed to make payment and hand over the cheques. Hence on 08.12.2020 the defacto complainant went to the house of the first petitioner and requested him to hand over the money or cheque for the amount due to him.
Further the defacto complainant also submitted that he want money for his wife medical expenses urgently and at the time the wife of the first petitioner removed her gold chain and handed over the same to the defacto complainant and asked him to pledge the same for his urgent necessity. The defacto complainant hesitated to receive the same and thereafter the defacto complainant received the same and left in his bike. The first petitioner along with his frined stenley came in a Bolero Jeep and stopped the defacto complainant and made a big scene and claimed that the defacto complainant had robed the gold chain of his wife and fleeing, the defacto complainant was also assaulted.
The defacto complainant was taken in the bolero jeep and left near the Angugraman bus stop and threatened him to leave by bus or otherwise he would be handed over to police. Thereafter the defacto complainant has given the present complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the first petitioner has got poultry shed and the defacto complainant had taken the poultry shed for three years lease period and had also paid for the same. The defacto complainant took the poultry farm for lease in the year 2020 and he wanted to cancel the lease agreement within two months. The first petitioner informed that the lease period is for three years and it cannot be unilaterally terminated. Further the first petitioner is willing to repay the lease only after handing over the poultry farm to other person and on reciept of advance from other persons he is ready to repay the advance amount. The defacto complainant was causing nuisance and annoyance to the first petitioner and calling even during odd hours and more particularly when he was not in home. On 08.12.
2020 when the first petitioner was not in home the defacto complainant came to the house of the first petitioner and threatened his wife and had forcibly taken the gold chain. The first petitioner along with villagers chased the defacto complainant , who had thrown the chain and fled from the scene of occurrence. Therefore to escape from the offence committed by him, as offensive he had lodged the present complaint. The respondent police joined hands with the defacto complainant and under the guise of enquiry had taken the bolero jeep. The first petitioner had also filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD) No.
vehicle and thereafter registered the above case. On receipt of notice the CSR No. 513 of 2020 was given on 08.12.2020 and thereafter First Information Report was registered on 17.12.2020. The petitioner had filed a petition under Section 99 of Cr.P.C before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on 10.12.2020 since the vehicle was taken by the respondent police. The vehicle taken by the respondent was not seized and the property was not produced before the concerned court. He has also filed typed set of papers in support of his contention.
4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that on the date of occurrence the defacto complainant and others lodged complaint before the respondent and enquiry was conducted in CSR No. 513 of 2020 and after investigation First Information Report was registered on 17.12.2020. The petitioners are using the lease amount of the defacto complainant after cancelling the lease deed. The petitioners are using the lease amount of the defacto complainant after cancelling the lease deed. On 29.09.2020 the first petitioner had got a house with the help of the lease amount of the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant had borrowed money from others and he had to settle his problems and for medical expenses of his wife he needed some money.
The defacto complainant had explained the first petitioner's wife about his financial need and the first petitioner's wife had voluntarily given gold chain to the defacto complainant to help him and his wife. Taking advantage of the situation the petitioners created a scene as if the defacto complainant had forcibly taken the gold jewels and abused him and also attacked him with stick and caused injuries. Further in this case the defacto complainant was forcibly taken in the jeep and kept in confinement. Thereafter the defacto complainant had lodged the complaint. Investigation in this case is in progress. 5.It is seen that the defacto complainant and the first petitioner are lessor and lessee. The defacto complainant could not continue his business and also cancelled the lease agreement.
After cancelling the lease agreement the first petitioner ought to have repaid the amount received. Due to some mis-understanding there seems to be some scuffling and beating between them, due to which the present case came to be registered.
6. Taking into consideration all the above facts and circumstances of the case this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District on condition that the petitioners 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 3/5
respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a)the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.
(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d)the petitioners 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 petitioners 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]; and;
(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
sd/- 05/01/2021 / 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.III, NAGERCOIL, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.
4/5
3.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANJUGRAMAM POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15891 of 2020 Date :05/01/2021 AAV TK/PN/SAR.3/07.01.2021/5P/5C 5/5