BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.14871 of 2011 M.VELU MAYIL ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PALAYAMKOTTAI SAMAPATHANAPURAM, TIRUNELVELI DT. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT CRIME NO. 14 OF 2005 For Petitioner : M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate For Respondent : MR. C. RAMESH, ADDL. 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 465, 467, 468 and 419 of IPC., in Crime No. 14 of 2005, 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. S. Palanivelayutham, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Ramesh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the state. 3. According to the leaned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was said to have signed as witness in the said documents stated to have been questioned by the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the complaint given by the de-facto complainant was referred as “ mistake of fact “ and now, it has been again ordered for re-investigation the said circumstances, he would request for the grant of anticipatory bail and he is also ready to appear before the respondent police whenever required for interrogation. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit in his argument that it is true that the complaint given by the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was registered in Crime No. 14 of 2005 and on elaborate investigation, the case was referred as “ mistake of fact “ and thereafter, re - investigation was ordered by the jurisdcitional Magistrate and it is pending for re – investigation. 5. Considering the submissions made on both sides, this Court could see that the accusation against the petitioner was that he has put the signature as witness to the transaction and the case was referred as “ mistake of fact “ and now it is ordered for re – investigation. The Petitioner is having permanent residence and therefore, this court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, of course, subject to certain stringent conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, in the event of his arrest or on his appearance 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 No. I, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for the purpose of interrogation. 7. 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/- 16/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TIRUNELVELI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TIRUNELVELI 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PALAYAMKOTTAI SAMAPATHANAPURAM, TIRUNELVELI DT. 1. CC to M/S. S.PALANIVELAYUTHAM Advocate SR.No.40184: DM::2011:NOVEMBER:17:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14871 of 2011 Date :16/11/2011 2p:6c::6C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/