BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of June Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.7526 of 2011 1 M.MALAYALINGAM 2 RM.MUTHURAMAN 3 S.THEIVANAI 4 A.LAKSHMANAN 5 M.SARAVANAN ..PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 2 to 6 Vs. THE STATE REP.THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVERUMPUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY. CR.NO. 429/2011. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT R.M.RAMASAMY ..INTERVENOR For Petitioners : M/S.PALA.RAMASAMY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : MR.T.M.MADASAMY, Advocate 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 381, 408, 424, 506(i) and 120(b) of IPC in Crime No.429 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence seek anticipatory bail. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are A-2 to A-6 and they are related to A-1 and even according to the prosecution A-1 was employed as Manager of the de-facto complainant and he misused his position and re-pledged the jewels which were pledged with the de-facto complainant with the Muthoot Finance and misappropriated the proceeds. According to the petitioners, except the allegation that A-1 pledged some of the jewels in the name of A-6, viz., the fifth petitioner, no allegations were made against the petitioners and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that A-1 re-pledged the jewels which were pledged with the defacto complainant for which A-1 was in charge and misappropriated a sum of Rs.22,80,000/- and A-1 was not apprehended. He further submitted that the petitioners are related to A-1 and the first petitioner is the brother of A-1, second petitioner is the brother-in-law of A-1 and the third petitioner is the wife of A-1, fourth petitioner is another brother-in-law of A-1 and the fifth petitioner is the son of the third petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that all the petitioners colluded with the first accused and misappropriated the amount by pledging the jewels which were pledged with the de-facto complainant and the first accused was entrusted with the management of the said business and by misusing his position along with the petitioners, he pledged jewels and collected a sum of Rs.22,80,000/- and misappropriated the same. 5. Heard Mr.Pala Ramasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr.A.Ramar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent and also Mr.D.Sadiq Raja, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 6. 6. Admittedly the petitioners are the relatives of A-1 and A-1 was working as Manager of the de-facto complainant and he was receiving jewels from the customers and as per the direction of the de-facto complainant, he re-pledged those jewels with Muthoot Finance and without bringing the same into account, he misappropriated the said amount. The allegation against the petitioners is that A-1 pledged the jewels in the name of A-6, viz., the fifth petitioner and as per the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, so far no Officers of Muthoot Finance were examined and it is not known whether the jewels were pledged in the name of A-6 were recovered. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the petitioners are relatives and the misappropriation was committed by A-1, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichy and on each of them executing a personal bond for a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 1, 2, 4 and 5 shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and the third petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously. 8. 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/- 30/06/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.6, TRICHY. 2 -Do-Thro' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TRICHY. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE THIRUVERUMPUR POLICE STATION, TRICHY. +1CC to MR.PALA.RAMASAMY Advocate SR.No.20912 +1CC to MR.T.M.MADASAMY, Advocate Sr.No.20828 akm/01.07.11 /2p-7c/ ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7526 of 2011 Date :30/06/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/