1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Monday, the Fourteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14576 of 2011 K.PALANICHAMY :PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCIWCID, DINDIGUL. CR NO. 3/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. J.LAWRANCE, 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:- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 408 and 477(A) I.P.C. in Crime No.3 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.J.Lawrance, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent State. 3.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ranked as third accused in this case and he is working as a Clerk in the Kampilliyampatti, Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society, Dindigul District and the first accused is an Assistant Secretary and the second accused is the Secretary and on the basis of the enquiry conducted under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, a sum of Rs.4,57,365/- was found to have been misappropriated and hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused. 4.He would further submit that the alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.4,57,365/-was collectively paid by all the accused and the petitioner is still working in the Co-operative Society and therefore, there is no reason for suspecting the accused absconding from the clutches of law and he may be granted anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that it is true that they have paid the amount misappropriated from the said Society to the tune of Rs.4,57,365/- and the second accused was already granted anticipatory bail. 6.Considering the submissions made by both sides, I could see that the second accused was granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)NO.14604/2011 on 11.11.2011 and the petitioner is also on the same footing and the said alleged misappropriated amount of Rs.4,57,365/- was paid by all the accused and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/3rd accused with certain conditions. 7.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.III, 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 respondent police daily 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 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/- 14/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:III, Madurai. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W.CID, Dindigul. +1. CC to M/S. J.LAWRANCE Advocate SR.No.39525. RP/15.11.2011/2P/6C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14576/11. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/