1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S. RAJESWARAN CRL OP(MD) No.17404 of 2011 C.RAMESH, S/O.CHIDAMBARAM, WEST KARAMBAYAM, PATTUKKOTTAI TALUK, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. :PETITIONER / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PATTUKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, PATTUKKOTTAI, THANJAVUR DISTRICT. CR.NO.66/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M.GANESH, Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, 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 offence punishable under sections 419, 420 and 495 of IPC in Crime No.66 of 2011, on the file of the respondent police. He has approached this court for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2.Heard Mr.M.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner's wife, viz., Selvi has given a complaint before the respondent police on 12.03.2011 against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed some offences in Singapore and he is not a genuine person. It is the further case of the petitioner that the same wife has filed a petition in HCP(MD)No.846 of 2010 before this court for production of the petitioner herein/her husband and it is also ordered by this court by giving certain directions. Therefore, the complaint given by the de-facto complainant is not a genuine one. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both of them are living together as on today and the respondent police is harassing the petitioner on the complaint given by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 de-facto complainant. He would also submit that he is also having permanent residence and therefore, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail. 5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that due to family dispute, the petitioner has been implicated. He would further submit that the investigation is pending and if for any reason, this court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, suitable conditions may be passed for the secured presence of the petitioner. 6.In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thep etitioner, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 7.Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest or on his apearance before the Judicial Magistrate concerned 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 Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the CBCID, Thanjavur since he is already reporting before them as per the orders passed by this court in H.C.P., for a period of three weeks. 8.The petitioner, shall appear before the Magistrate concerned within a period of 15 days, failing which, the anticipatory bail granted shall stand automatically cancelled. sd/- 28/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur District @ Kumbakonam. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Inspector of Police, Pattukkottai Taluk Police Station, Pattukkottai, Thanjavur Dt. 5.The Officer-in-charge, CBCID, Thanjavur. +1CC to M/S. M.GANESH Advocate SR.No.46223. RP/30.12.2011/2P/7C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17404 of 2011 Date :28/12/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/