Bavya v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM

1. Bavya,

2. Arappuli,

3. Nebash @ Nivash,

4. Neela, ... Petitioners/Accused Nos. 1 to 4 Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Uppliyapuram Police Station, Uppiliyapuram, Trichy District.

Crime No. 270 of 2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s. Sakthivel.R, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 270 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / accused, who apprehends at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC in Crime No.270 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that both the petitioners and the defacto complainant are close relatives and hence, the defacto complainant pledged the jewels for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and invested the said amount in the petitioners company, subsequently, they cheated. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case and hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that after receiving the jewels by way of pledging, the defacto complainant has invested the same in the petitioners company and subsequently, cheated him. He would further submit that the investigation of the case is pending.

5. On perusal of the FIR, it is noticed that there was a money dispute between the parties with regard to return of jewels.

2/5

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 origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioners is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioners is having permanent residents at Trichy 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. 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, Thuraiyur, Trichy District on condition that the petitioners shall execute own bonds for a sum of Rs.

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 appear before the trial Court on receipt of summons as directed by the trial Court.

[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial. [d] 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 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]. [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

sd/- 17/11/2023 / TRUE COPY / /11/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

4/5

TRP TO THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THURAIYUR, TRICHY DISTRICT.

DO THROUGH:

THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE UPPLIYAPURAM POLICE STATION, UPPILIYAPURAM, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.R.SAKTHIVEL, Advocate ( SR-16440[I] dated 17/11/2023 )

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20725 of 2023 Date :17/11/2023 PKP/DD/SAR- /29.11.2023/ 5P/ 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5