Meharaj 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 1.Meharaj 2.Nagoor Hanifa ... Petitioners / Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, Keeraithurai, Madurai City.

(Crime No.932 of 2023) ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioners :

Mr.T.Veerakumar, 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.932 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. 1/6

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 380 IPC in Crime No.932 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the paternal aunt of the first petitioner herein and she is taking care of her. Before three months, the defacto complainant met with an accident and the first petitioner took care of her. At that time, a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was missed from the house of the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that on 18.10.2022 the defacto complainant preferred a complaint and based on the same, summons were issued to the petitioners. On 19.10.2022, the petitioners appeared before the respondent police and gave an explanation and thereafter, the police closed the complaint. Again the defacto complainant preferred the complaint and the petitioners again appeared and gave statement and they also returned the properties given by the defacto complainant. Again, thereafter, the defacto complainant preferred the present false complaint alleging that Rs.2,00,000/- was missing from her house. Hence, he seeks 2/6

anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the investigation in this case is not completed. 5.On perusal of records, it is noticed that earlier the defacto complainant preferred complaint and the same was enquired and closed. Now, again the defacto complainant preferred the complaint with the very same allegations. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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 origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners are having permanent residents at Madurai 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.

to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond. 7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a 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 petitioners shall affix his photograph 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 trial Court on summons. [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 4/6

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

sd/- 18/10/2023 / TRUE COPY / /11/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GNS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai.

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

3.The Inspector of Police, Keeraithurai Police Station, Keeraithurai, Madurai City.

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

+1 CC to M/s.T.VEERAKUMAR, Advocate ( SR-15360[I] dated 18/10/2023 ) 5/6

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18743 of 2023 Date :18/10/2023 ED/VRS /SAR- (03/11/2023) 6P / 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 6/6