Sudalaimani Sunitha v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16.10.2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

1. Sudalaimani Sunitha ... 1st Petitioner/Accused No.1

2. Velvizhi Paneerselvam ... 2nd Petitioner/Accused No.2

3. Anand Sathish ... 3rd Petitioner/Accused No.3

4. Saravanan ... 4th Petitioner/Accused No.5

5. Juli @ Juliet Vanaja ... 5th Petitioners/Accused No.7 Vs The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dindigul District.

Crime No.10 of 2024 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Advocate for M/s.Ebenezer Charles.T.J For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.K.Govindarajan for Mr.S.Alagusundar PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 482 BNSS 1/6

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners /Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC, in Crime No.10 of 2024, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused forged the defacto complinant's signature in her resignation letter and removed her from Director post and took a loan to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint. 3.Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the material records of the case.

4.The learned Counsel for the intervenor would submit that the total loss which is suffered by the defacto complainant even on a conservative estimate would be 3.7 crores. The petitioners are the prime accused in this case and no recovery is made from the other arrested accused also and therefore, he would oppose for grant 2/6

of anticipatory bail. He further submitted that there are other allegations also with reference to forgery and therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. 5.Considering the nature of allegations in this case and considering the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that as far as the prime allegation of forging the resignation letter is concerned, no money was paid and considering the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that without prejudice to their contentions that they will deposit the original deeds in respect of the property contained in Re-survey NO.53/2C in Solaikuruchi Village, totally measuring 11.5 cents along with an affidavit, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioners on aniticipatory bail.

6.Accordingly, this Petition is allowed and 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.II, Dindigul, 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 respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further conditions that:

3/6

(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)as undertaken, the petitioners shall produce the original documents along with an affidavit at the time of execution of the sureties in respect of the aforementioned property.

(c)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. It is made clear that no relaxation of the condition for the said period will be entertained by this court;

(d)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(e)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial; (f)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 4/6

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; (g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/- 16/10/2024 / TRUE COPY / /10/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

JBR TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II DINDIGUL.

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.T.J.EBENEZER CHARLES, Advocate ( SR-12506[I] dated 16/10/2024 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14676 of 2024 Date :16/10/2024 SS/VR/SAR- /23/10/2024/ 6P/6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6