1 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.13217 of 2011 SANTHA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLCIE SINGAMPUNARI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT CR NO. 178/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. V.MURUGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Addl.Public Prosecutor( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as an accused and she was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.08.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 454 and 380 of I.P.C., in Crime No.178 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 21.08.2011, on the fateful day, the petitioner/accused opened the locked door of the house of the defacto complainant and stolen a D.V.D. Player kept inside the house. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a widow, she has driven out by her son and a false case has been foisted against her under Section 454 and 380 I.P.C. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence and she is in custody for more than 40 days and hence, she prays for enlargement on bail. 4. Refuting the same, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner herself broken the house of the defacto complainant and trespassed into the house and stolen the D.V.D. Player. He further submitted that the petitioner has not having permanent https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 address and if she is enlarged on bail, she will abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the fact that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 21.08.2011 and the stolen articles has been recovered and the petitioner is a widow, she has driven out by her son and the investigation is considerably over and she is in custody for more than 40 days, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each, out of which, one of the surety must be her close relatives, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 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, THIRUPPATHUR. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, SIVAGANGAI. 3 THE OFFICER INCHARGE, SUB JAIL, TRICHY. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SINGAMPUNARI POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT. 5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC to M/S. V.MURUGAN Advocate SR.No.34419 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13217 of 2011 Date :30/09/2011 PA/03.10.2011/2P/7C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/