Allowed

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC25 Feb 2019CRL OP(MD)/2785/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court considered a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case alleging cheating and forgery. Finding the petitioner willing to deposit the allegedly misappropriated amount, the Court granted bail with strict conditions to deposit funds, report to police, and not abscond or tamper with evidence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail in event of arrest if conditions including deposit of Rs. 4,97,000 and execution of bond with sureties are met.

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Monday, the Twenty Fifth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.2785 of 2019

¶7

M. MARIYA SELVAM, ... PETITIONER /SOLE ACCUSED

¶8

¶9

STATE REP.BY

¶10

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

¶11

(CRIME NO. 68/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶12

For Petitioner : MR. S.N. SUBRAMANI Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI,

¶14

Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶15

For Intervenor : MR.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate

¶16

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Section 420 I.P.C. in Crime No.68 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner induced the de facto complainant and others for securing job in foreign country and got huge amount. Thereafter, he neither secure the job nor repay the amount. Due to which, one of the victim's father committed suicide. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she is an innocent person. However, on instructions, he would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.4,97,000/- to the credit of Crime No.68 of 2019 in favour of Govindaraj, without prejudice to her defence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

¶22

¶23

the respondent police would submit that investigation is pending.

¶24

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit the entire amount in favour of the victim, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶25

(a)the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶26

(b)the petitioner shall deposit a sum of

¶27

Rs.4,97,000/- to the credit of Crime No.68 of 2019 in favour of Govindaraj before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the learned Magistrate shall disburse the deposited amount in favour of above said victim, without filing any proper application.

¶28

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required;

¶29

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶30

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶31

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

¶32

(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

sd/-

25/02/2019

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

¶39

¶40

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, MADURAI.

¶41

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

¶42

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.

¶43

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶44

+1. CC to MR.M.KARUNANITHI, Advocate SR.No.3777 +1cc to MR.R.ALAGUMANI, Advocate in SR.No. 50301

¶45

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.2785 of 2019 Date :25/02/2019 AE/PN/SAR-II/11.03.2019/3P/7C

¶46

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sobin Mathew, Vs Bharathidasan University

P.Durairaj, Vs the Joint Commissioner

Tomy Corera Vs the Chairman Cum Managing

M. Mariya Selvam, D/O.Manuvel Vs the Inspector of Police

Sumathi Bala, Vs the Superintendent of Customs

D.Kamalam, Vs the District Collector