Bharath v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18/10/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Bharath ... Petitioner / Accused No.1 Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

(Crime No.620/2023.) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner :

K. M.Karunakaran, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener :

M/s.Benazir Begum, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.620/2023 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406,420,506(i) of IPC abnd Section 4 of 1/6

TNPHW Act in Crime No.620 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, petitioner and the second accused are having acquaintance with each other and based on that acquaintance the second and the second accused borrowed a sum of Rs.6,72,500/- on various occasion from the defacto complainant and failed to repay the same. Further the second accused approached the defacto complainant and demanded more money. When the defacto complainant expressed her inability to pay the money the second accused asked the defacto complainant to lend her jewels for completing the construction work and the defacto complainant also lend her jewels and the second accused also pledged the same in Muthoot Finance for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- and for sum of Rs.35,000/- in Mohan Finance at Jawahar Bazar.

Thereafter when the defacto complainant demanded the accused to repay the amount and jewels the petitioner herein along with other accused threatened the defacto complainant and also criminally intimidated her, hence the case. 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 on the alleged date of occurrence the petitioner was not present in the scene of occurrence. Hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the petitioner herein along with other accused threatened the defacto complainant and also criminally intimidated her.

5. It is seen that there is some loan transaction between the parties and the entire case is civil in nature.

6.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 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 Karur 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. 3/6

7.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, Karur on condition that the petitioner shall execute own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned 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 report before the trial Court on receipt of summons [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with 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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the 4/6

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

sd/- 18/10/2023 / 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, Karur.

2.Do through the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karur District.

3.The Inspector of Police, Karur Town Police Station, Karur District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

+1 CC to M/s.K.M.KARUNAKARAN, Advocate ( SR-15403[I] dated 18/10/2023 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18740 of 2023 Date :18/10/2023 ED/ DD /SAR- (25/10/2023) 6P / 6 C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6