BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.11196 of 2011 P.SUBRAMANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2 Vs STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT CRIME NO.21 OF 2011 ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.MATHIYALAGAN 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 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406 and 380 of I.P.C. in Crime No.21 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the de-facto complainant and the petitioner are close relatives and there was a petition suit is pending between the petitioner's son and the de-facto complainant in O.S.No.9 of 2009 before the learned District Judge, Karur. He further submit that A1 and A3 have stolen the five cheques from the de-facto complainant in between 2006-2008, subsequently, same have been dishonoured and the proceedings under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act has been taken. He further submits that now the present complaint has been registered against the petitioner under Sections 120(b), 406 and 380 I.P.C., and the petitioner is an innocent person and he has nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A2 is the father of A1 and A3. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ further submits that due to the enmity, A1 and A3 have entered into the de-facto complainant's company and stolen five cheques from the de-fcato complainant and distributed the same to the other accused and they have filed a complaint against the defacto complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 4.Considering the rilval submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the case has ben registered against the petitioner on 27.07.2011 and the petitioner and the de-facto complainant are close relatives and admittedly, a notice has been issued against the defacto complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, and the civil dispute is pending, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner , with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur and on execute 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 at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 09/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, KARUR 2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KARUR DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S. R.MATHIYALAGAN Advocate SR.No.30846 rl/6c – 16.9.2101 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11196 of 2011 Date :09/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/