1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the First day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14187 of 2011 OCHU :PETITIONER / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D2 SELLUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. CR NO. 2297/2011 :RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. K.ABIYA, Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDI, ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioner is the sole accused in Crime No.2297 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police for offences under sections 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The alleged occurrence was on 26.09.2011,he was arrested on 27.09.2011. He has come forward with this petition seeking bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, on 26.09.2011 when the de-facto complainant was driving his auto, the petitioner waylaid the same by brandishing knife, snatched away a sum of Rs.300/- from the de-facto complainant and had stolen away the auto also. On his arrest, the vehicle was seized from the custody. Apart from this case, the petitioner has got give previous cases. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that if release the petitioner would indulge in similar crime and therefore, bail may not be granted to him. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this case has been falsely foisted against the petitioner. According to him, the de-facto complainant and the accused are relatives, however, there has been enmity between the two families. It is because of the said enmity, according to the learned counsel, this false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that in all the other cases, he is on bail and so grant of bail to the petitioner in this case, will not hamper the investigation in any manner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.I have considered the above submissions. 6.Of course, it is true that there are five other cases. But, at the same time, admittedly, no money was recovered from the accused. Apart from that, the contention of the petitioner that the de-facto complainant and the accused were close relatives and there has been previous enmity also needs to be considered. It is not as though, the petitioner will abscond, if released on bail. 7.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that at this stage by granting bail to the petitioner, the prosecution will not be hampered with in any manner. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, but with stringent conditions. 8.In the result, this petition is ordered and bail is granted to the petitioner on the following conditions:- i.The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his 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, Madurai; and ii.The petitioner shall report before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m. for a period of eight weeks. sd/- 01/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:II, Madurai. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Sub Inspector of Police, Sub Inspector of Police, D2 Sellur Police Station, Madurai Dt. 5.The Officer In-charge, Central Prison, Madurai. +1. CC to M/S. K.ABIYA Advocate SR.No.37465. RP/02.11.11/2P/7C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14187/11 Date :01/11/2011. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/