BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE V.PERIYA KARUPPIAH CRL OP(MD) No.8191 of 2011 SAMPATH KUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MASARPATTI POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, CRIME NO.97/2010. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.P.SENGUTTUVAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAI PANDIAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) 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 commission of offence punishable under Section 392 I.P.C. and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.Heard Mr.Senguttuvan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) appearing for the state. 3.According to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is arrayed as A20 and the respondent police have recovered 400gms of jewels from some other Sampathkumar. He would further submit that the petitioner is willing to co-operate with the police for further investigation and he has a permanent residence at Kerala State and he is ready and willing to abide any condition likely to be imposed by this Court. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and the recovery articles to the tune of 400gms were done in pursuance of athatchi in which, it was recovered from some other Sampathkumar and the petitioner is not the said person. He would further submit that the investigation has to be completed only after recovery of the articles to the tune of in which 5.8kgs of gold have also been seized. He would further submit that if for any reason, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail, stringent conditions may be imposed. 5.Considering the submission made on both sides, I could see that the athatchi in the case diary produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.side) would show that it is some other Sampathkumar, 38, Virutham House, Krishna Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, but the petitioner is not the said person. He is Sampathkumar, Cherupillil House, Azhakam P.O., Aluva, Ernakulam District, Kerala State. It is not the case of the petitioner that both Sampathkumars are one and the same person. In https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the athatchi available in the case diary it has been stated that the said person from whom the property has been recovered from one Sampathkumar 38, Virutham House, Krishna Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. However, the petitioner before this Court is a different person. Therefore, the submission is made by the petitioner in Paragraph No.2 that 400gms jewels was recovered from the petitioner by the respondent police on 19.12.2010, is not found correct. 6.In the said circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed. However, at this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he may be permitted to surrender before the said Court and seek for bail. The petitioner is permitted to do so, as per law. sd/- 22/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MASARPATTI POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.P.SENGUTTUVAN Advocate SR.No.41152 SR : 24.11.2011 : 2P/4C ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8191 of 2011 Date :22/11/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/