BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.12196 of 2011 1 SIVANATHAN ...PETITIONER NO.1/ACCUSED NO.1 2 PRABHU 3 NATTARAYAN ... PETITIONERS NOS.2 & 3/ ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI. CR.NO. 1608/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.S.M.A.JINNAH ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.A.RAMAR ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 395, 506(i) and 379(NP) I.P.C., in Crime No.1608 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 is alleged to be obtained a loan for a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the defacto complainant, when he demanded money, the petitioners 1 to 3 were alleged to be assaulted the defacto complainant and taken away his gold jewels. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have nothing to do with the alleged commission of offence. He further submitted that there is no business transaction between them and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that A1 has borrowed a sum of Rs.4 lakhs from the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the defacto complainant went to the house of the first petitioner and demanded to repay the said amount, at that time, A1 to A3 have assaulted him and hence, the defacto complainant escaped from the place of occurrence by leaving his car and at the time, the first petitioner has taken away a sum of Rs.2.5 lakhs cash, which was kept in the dashboard of the car. He further submitted that no case is pending against the petitioner and the investigation is going on and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5.Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and also considering the document filed by the petitioner, it is seen that the defacto complainant is facing so may criminal cases and he is one of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Director of PAAZEE Company and the occurrence has taken place on 30.06.2011 and the complaint has been given on 01.07.2011 and the F.I.R. has been registered on 08.09.2011 and even though the petitioners were not arrested neither they interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. 6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.V, Madurai and on executing a separate 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 petitioners shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 7.The petitioners 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/- 19/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V, MADURAI. 2 DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI. 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI. 4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1 CC TO M/S.S.M.A.JINNAH ADVOCATE SR.NO.31977. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.12196 of 2011 Date :19/09/2011 2P/6C RPB 21.09.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/