BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Third day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12405 of 2011 PANDIAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAKKUTHUN POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, CRIME NO.804/2010 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.SENGUTTUARASAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/accused No.3 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 506(i) I.P.C. in crime No.804 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant one Jayabharathi, a case has been registered in crime No.804 of 2010 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) and 506(i) I.P.C. by the respondent police and the petitioner is arrayed as A3 and already A1 and A2 were arrested and enlarged on bail. He would further submit that the averments against the petitioner is that she had made criminal intimidation against the defacto complainant, when she demanded money. He would further submit that the amount has been received by A1 from the defacto complainant and the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence and if at all, the ingredients of Section 506(i) I.P.C., has been made out, since other accused were enlarged on bail and she apprehended for arrest, she has come forward with the present application for anticipatory bail. 3.Repudiating the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that when the defacto complainant approached A1 for loan, A1 has collected Rs.3000/- per head and nearly 420 persons were approached A1 for making arrangement for the loan and hence, he collected a sum of Rs.12,60,000/-, but, he has not taken any steps to obtain loan for them and A3 is assisting for them. He would further submit that neither A1 to A3 made arrangement for loan to the members of self help group nor returned the amount i.e. Rs.12,60,000/-, which has been received by them. He would further submit that there are 6 cases are pending against the petitioner and since the investigation is going on, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The alleged occurrence has been taken place in between 11.11.2009 to 11.01.2010 and the complaint has been given only on 13.06.2011 against three persons and the petitioner was shown as A3. The averment against the petitioner is that A2 is the brother of the petitioner and even though A1 and A2 have received the amount to the tune of Rs.12,60,000/-, they have not made arrangement for obtaining loan and when the defacto complainant demanded money, the petitioner along with Aq1 and A2 made criminal intimidation. Except this, no averment against the petitioner. As per the version of the Additional Public Prosecutor, six previous cases are pending against the petitioner. But in the case in crime No.500 of 2010 referred charge sheet has been filed. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, even though the case has been registered on 13.06.2011, the petitioner neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain condition. 7. Accordingly, the petitioner/A3 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Madurai and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily morning at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 8. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 23/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, MADURAI. 2. -DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VILAKKUTHUN POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY. 4. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. P.SENGUTTUARASAN Advocate SR.No.33009 SR : 26.09.2011 : 2P/6C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12405 of 2011 Date :23/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/