Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/3481/2015disposed of

S. Senthivel v. The Deputy Superintendent Of

2015-06-01Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the First day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.3481 of 2015 S. SENTHIVEL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP.BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DSP), MUDUKULATHUR, RAMANATHAPURAM DT, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2015.

.. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT [THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, MUDUKULATHUR TALUK,RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.18 OF 2015 dated 29.03.2015)] For Petitioner : M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is a sole accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.18 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner had received Rs.2,40,000/- from the de-facto complainant for selling his property and subsequently, he failed to execute a sale deed in favour of the de-facto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a third round of litigation and the petitioner had filed a petition for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.23867 of 2014 and it was reported by the respondent police that the petition enquiry was conducted and closed on 27.12.2014. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.9412 and 9413 of 2013 directing the respondent not to harass the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had also filed a writ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petition in W.P.(MD).No.11413 of 2013 forbearing the respondent from interfering with the civil dispute with the de-facto complainant.

4. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur, Ramanathapuram 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 on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 6.00 p.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

6. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

sd/- 01/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MUDUKULATHUR,RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. 2.

DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,RAMANATHAPURAM.

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (DSP), MUDUKULATHUR, RAMANATHAPURAM DT.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KEELATHOOVAL POLICE STATION, MUDUKULATHUR TALUK,RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.T.LAJAPATHI ROY Advocate SR.No.26788

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.3481 of 2015 Date :01/06/2015 PA/04.06.2015/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/