BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Ninth day of August Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.9709 of 2011 S.P.K.GOGULDOSS : PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs. THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. CR.NO.38 OF 2011 : RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. P.T.RAMESH RAJA 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 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 384, 506(i) and 406 of I.P.C and in Crime No.38 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.38 of 2011 and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 3.3.2008 and the complaint has been given only on 26.7.2011. He further submitted that Dindigul Cable Network is a partnership firm and the petitioner is the first partner and the defacto complainant is also other partner of the firm and his name is find place in Form-I under Indian Partnership Act, 1932 and in the complaint, it is stated that on 3.3.2008 the first accused/petitioner herein is directed one Saravanan to hand over all the Cable TV Link and major shares belonging to the big shot in the locality and because of the threat, he had handed over the same and he received Rs.20 lakhs for one month linking charges and the present petitioner has taken away all the materials in respect of 30 km radius and it is further stated in the FIR that the value of the property is one crore and 25 lakhs. He further submitted that they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ received the amount for linking charges for the months of April and May. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that resolution has been passed on 26.3.2008 and it is stated in clause - 5 that the defacto complainant has directed to purchase the property belonging to DCN Entertainment Media (Dindigul)Pvt. Limited within 5.4.2008 and the defacto complainant is the second signatory and he never mentioned the same in the complaint, because of the present scenario,a false case has been foisted against the petitioner and since he apprehend for arrest he come forward with this application and hence, he prays for enlargement on anticipatory bail. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Crl.Side) would submit that the alleged occurrence has been taken place on 3.3.2008 and the defacto complainant was forced to give all the materials in respect of cable network and they also collected two months linking charges for April and May and the complaint has been given on 26.7.2011 and investigation is going on. He further submitted that likewise the defacto complainant, 13 other complainants gave complaint stating that the first accused has received 56 lakhs for linking charges and before that, the first accused collected the amount through A2 and investigation is in earlier stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. 5. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides and a perusal of document No.1 filed before this Court which shows that it is a partnership firm and A1 collected the amount in the Dindigul Cable Net Work and the present petitioner as well as the defacto complainant are the partners of the firm and as per the document No.3, a resolution was passed on 26.3.2008 and in that, the defacto complainant is the second signatory and in clause-5 of the resolution, it is stated that Sankaranarayanan is permitted to purchase the property of DCN Entertainment Media, (Dindigul) Private Limited by receiving Rs.150/- per sq.ft on or before 5.4.2008 and all the partners are signed the same and the petitioner herein has never forced anybody to transfer and hand over the materials worth Rs.1.25 crores and further, the documents have clearly proved the same and in the FIR, this factum has not been mentioned and it was mentioned that as if on 3.3.2008 he was forced to hand over the cable net work with the petitioner and except this, he has not stated anything. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Considering the same and the occurrence has been taken place on 3.3.2008 and the complaint has been given on 26.7.2011 and a case has been registered under Sections 420, 384, 506(i) and 406 of IPC and it is only the partnership firm, So I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Magistrate concerned 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 Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul 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. 7. 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, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. Sd/- 09/08/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.2, DINDIGUL. 2. -DO- THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DINDIGUL. 3. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL. +1 CC to M/S. P.T.RAMESH RAJA Advocate SR.No.26812 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9709 of 2011 Date :09/08/2011 NSV/12.8.11/3P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/