BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr. Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.16011 of 2011 POOLTHAI @ POOLMANI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.12 Vs STATEAF REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI, CR NO. 54/2011 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN, 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 A12 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.11.2011 for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 419, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C., in Crime No.54 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail. 2. Heard Mr.T.A.Ebenezer, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent State. 3. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is ranked as A12 and the allegation against her was that, she had impersonated one Nagammal and thereby executed a sale deed in favour of A1 to A4. He would further submit that the petitioner is incarceration for about 40 days along with her 1-1/2 years child and the other co-accused has already been released on bail and she is ready to abide any condition likely to be imposed against her. He would also submit that she was not indulged in tampering of witnesses in this case and would co-operate with the investigation. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that the co-accused including the advocate has been released on bail, but the standing of the petitioner may not be a similar with those accused released on bail. He would further submit that if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, stringent conditions may be imposed. 5. Considering the submissions made by both sides, this Court could see that the petitioner is incarceration for about 40 days along with her 1-1/2 years child and the co-accused have already been released on bail and the investigation is mainly depending upon the documentary evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and therefore, there is no serious apprehension regarding the tampering of evidences. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, 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 for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. sd/- 19/12/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI. 2. THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TIRUNELVELI 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PALAYAMKOTTAI. 5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. T.A.EBENEZER Advocate SR. No.44272 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.16011 of 2011 Date :19/12/2011 RJ/21.12.11 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/