BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eleventh day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.13877 of 2011 RAMANATHAN : PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NORTH POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI. CRIME NO.335 of 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. KARA ASSOCIATES Advocate For Respondent : Mr. K.S.DURAIPANDIAN Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police in Crime No.335 of 2011, for offences under Sections 379, 380, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner is before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail. 2. According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner is the husband of the de facto complainant. The marriage between them was celebrated on 07.09.1978. From 1993 onwards, they have been living separately. They have got children also. There are matrimonial proceedings pending before the Civil Court. When they were living together, they were operating bank locker jointly. It is alleged that the de facto complainant kept her jewels in the said locker. However, after separation, without the knowledge of the de facto complainant, with the connivance of the bank officials, the locker was open by the petitioner, and thereafter, he took away the jewels belonging to the de facto complainant. With the above allegations, the present case has been registered against the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would deny the above allegations. According to him, inventory is sought for in the bank locker. Even in the year 1983, the jewels belonging to the de facto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ complainant were taken away by her and after that, no jewels belonging to her are in the custody of the petitioner. 4. I have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, after lapse of 18 years, the complaint has been made and a case in Crime No.335 of 2011 has been registered. There is no explanation as to why for about 18 years, there is no complaint in this regard. 5. Having regard to the above and all other attendant circumstances, more particularly, matrimonial proceedings are pending before the Civil Court, I am inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner, but with conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Karaikudi, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks without fail. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. Sd/- 11/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARAIKUDI. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NORTH POLICE STATION, KARAIKUDI. +1 CC to M/S. KARA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.39112 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13877 of 2011 Date :11/11/2011 NSV/14.11.11/2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/