1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventh day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14284 of 2011 1 V.SUBRAMANIAN 2 SOLAMAN CHANDRASEKAR 3 K.BOOPALAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3 S.BHAVANI ... INTEVERNER Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THURAIYUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY. (CR.NO.417/2011) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.D.SHANMUGARAJA SETHUPATHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, Addl. Public Prosecutor (Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.R.SINGARAVELAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners are arrayed as A1 to A3 and they prayed for grant of anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C., for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 403, 406 and 424 I.P.C in crime No.417 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.R.Singaravelan, learned counsel for the intervenor and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit in his argument that the petitioners are ranked as A1 to A3 and the first petitioner is the past president of the Educational Agency of the said school and the second petitioner is the Headmaster and the third petitioner is the P.T. Assistant of the said school viz., Chengundar Higher Secondary School. He would further submit in his argument that the complaint against the petitioners are that the third petitioner has got the custody of the certificates from the DEO Office, Musri belonging to the de-facto complainant in order to hand over the same to the school authorities. Accordingly, he has received the certificates and handed over to the school authorities viz., Headmaster and subsequently, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 management has been changed and accordingly, the present president is doing the administration of the said school. He would further submit in his argument that the possession of any document with the school authorities would be available only with the present Educational Agency and therefore, there is nothing to be proceeded against the petitioners as sought for by the de-facto complainant. He would further submit in his argument that the petitioners are having permanent residence and are having permanent root in the society and they will not abscond from the clutches of law and hence, he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. 4.The learned counsel for the intervenor/de-facto complainant would submit in his argument that the certificates belonging to the de-facto complainant have been lost by the act of the petitioners and a complaint has been given and the certificates were not recovered so far. However, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail, the certificates belonging to the de-facto complainant would not be traced and discovered. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the investigation is offing and yet another F.I.R has been registered in Crime No.459 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for the offences under Sections 441, 454 and 380 I.P.C against the present office bearers of the management of the said school and the matters are being investigated, and the certificates will be discovered soon and if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, stringent condition may be imposed for their secured presence. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I could see that the certificates were obtained from the third petitioner from DEO Office, Musiri and it was handed over to the school authorities. Therefore, I could see that the third petitioner has got prima facie for the grant of anticipatory bail. However, the second petitioner is the head-Master and it is the duty of the head-master to have the custody of those certificates for being handed over to the de-facto complainant. In the mean time, the management of the said school has been changed and the management had been taken over the present president and however, the custody of the certificates belonging to the de-facto complainant is not known till today. In the said circumstances, it is not in dispute that the present management is holding authority over the conduct of the school and the investigation is pending. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner wants to withdraw the petition for anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 and 3. Accordingly, the petitioners 2 & 3 are directed to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur 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, Thuraiyur and on further condition that the petitioners 2 & 3 shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation and they shall not move away from the District without permission of the Jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioners 2 & 3 shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. As far as the first petitioner is concerned, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 6.The petitioners 2 & 3 shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 07/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THURAIYUR. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TRICHY. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THURAIYUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY. 4. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14284 of 2011 Date :07/12/2011 RJ/10.12.11 3p/5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/