Kathiresan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/10/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Kathiresan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Kumbakonam East Police Station, Thanjavur District.

(Crime No.525/2023)..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Karunakaran K M, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/S.M.Aasha, Government Advocate(Crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.525/2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/sole accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 403 and 408 of IPC in Crime No.525 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/5

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 04.11.2022 while the defacto complainant went to audit in the State Bank of India, Kumbakonam Branch he found shortage of Rs.30,000/- from the account. While enquiring the same and on seeing CCTV video it is found that the petitioner has taken the said amount without the knowledge of other staff members of the bank, hence the case came to be registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that the petitioner is now ready and willing to hand over the said amount to the bank. Hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioner. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.30,000/- from the bank account without the knowledge of other staff members of the bank, hence he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 2/5

and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origine of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent residents at Thoothukudi District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration.

In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pre-trial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond. 6.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam on condition that the petitioner shall execute own bond for a sum of Rs.

Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that :

[a] the petitioner shall affix his photograph and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of his Aadhar card or Bank Pass Book to ensure his identity.

[b] the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the credit in Crime No.525 of 2023 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kumbakonam and on such deposit being made the learned Magistrate shall disburse the said amount to bank without issuing any notice to the petitioner/accused. The learned Magistrate shall also accept the bond executed by the petitioner on payment being made. [c] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on receipt of summons [d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner 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 petitioner 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]. 4/5

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

sd/- 16/10/2023 / TRUE COPY / /10/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

aav TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KUMBAKONAM 2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THANJAVUR @ KUMBAKONAM.

3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUMBAKONAM EAST POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-15266[I] dated 16/10/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18097 of 2023 Date :16/10/2023 RK/VRS (20/10/2023) 5P / 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5