BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Thirtieth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.13014 of 2011 1 R.KRISHNASAMY 2 K.MAHALAKSHMI 3 K.KAVITHA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALANI TOWN POLICE STATION, IN CR.NO.54 OF 2010, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. R.MATHIALAGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b) r/w Sections 423 and 506(ii) IPC, in Crime No.54 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3 and since the petitioners herein filed a suit for promissory note for recovery of money due to promissory note, the present complaint has been given and the case has been registered under Sections 120(b) r/w Sections 423 and 506 (ii) IPC and now, they are apprehending arrest and hence they pray for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners herein fabricated the promissory note as if it was executed by the de-facto complainant and filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.80,000/- respectively and the investigation is going on and hence he prays for dismissal of the petition. 4.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it is seen that on the basis of the complaint given by the de-facto complainant, the case has been registered under Sections 120(b) r/w Sections 423 and 506(ii) IPC and in that, it was specifically mentioned that he had not executed any promissory note but as if the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioners herein filed a suit for recovery of money due on promissory note in O.S.No.229 of 2009 and also obtained an order of attachment before the judgment then only the de-facto complainant herein has preferred a complaint. Considering this pendency of the civil suit, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Palani, Dindigul District and each of them 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 Judicial Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6.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, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. Sd/- 30/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE PALANI, DINDIGUL DT 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PALANI TOWN POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S. R.MATHIALAGAN Advocate SR.No.34387 ssk/11.10.2011 /5c -2p/- ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13014 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/