BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Second day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.8320 of 2011 T. RATHINA KUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 1 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATHALAGUNDU POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DT CR NO. 284/2010 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.PETHU RAJESH 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 petitioner/Accused No.1 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.284 of 2010 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and a case has been registered on 2.6.2011 and the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner herein has introduced the second accused to the defacto complainant and regarding the business purpose, the second accused alone has received the amount and the petitioner is nothing to do with the dispute and he apprehended for arrest and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) submitted no one has been arrested and investigation is going on and he has received totally six lakhs and fifty thousand rupees and investigation is going on and he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, this Court could find that a case has been registered on 2.6.2010 in Crime No. 284 of 2010 under Section 420 of IPC against two persons and as per the version of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has simply introduced A2 to the defacto complainant for his business purpose and there is business transaction with A2 and defacto complainant and the petitioner is nothing to do with the commission of offence and even though the case has been registered on 2.6.2010, he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction,I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate Nellakottai, and each of them 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 6.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 02/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NILAKKOTTAI 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCHOF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE VATHALAGUNDU POLICE STATION DINDIGUL DT 1. CC to M/S.P.PETHU RAJESH Advocate SR.No.25607: DM::2011:AUGUST:03:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8320 of 2011 2P;6C:: Date :02/08/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/