BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fourth day of October Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.S.KARNAN CRL OP(MD) No.12981 of 2011 1 R. THILLAIARASAN 2 GANESH KUMAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 & 5 Vs STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE EOW POLICE (UNIT II), DINDIGUL DISTRICT CR NO.2/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN 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 petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 409, 420 and Section 5 of TNPID Act in Crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23/9/2011, one Rathinakumar of Bathalagundu has preferred a complaint before the respondent Police against the petitioners and four others alleging that he is the native of Batlagundu. In 2009, the petitioners along with three others had approached him and informed that they are running a finance firm in the name and style of Global Capital Trading and promised to give a sum of Rs.25,000/- every month in the event of depositing Rs.1 lakh. The petitioners purchased various properties in and around Batlagundu and Coodalore and cheated him. It is further alleged that the petitioners had promised to return the money within three months whereas failed to return the amount and thereby cheated him. Hence, he sought for action against the accused persons. On receipt of the said complaint on 23/9/2011, the petitioners apprehend arrest. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. This is the second case registered against the petitioners for the same set of facts and occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioners will not abscond or evade any due process of law and they will never tamper with the witnesses and hence, they had come forwarded with this application for bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of the anticipatory bail petition. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the Special Court for TNPID Act, Madurai and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., only for a period of one week. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously. 7. The petitioners 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/- 04/10/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TNPID ACT, MADURAI 2 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE EOW POLICE (UNIT II), DINDIGUL DT 3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. M.AJMAL KHAN Advocate SR.No.34784 ssk/04.10.2011 /5c-2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12981 of 2011 Date :04/10/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/