Advocates:
['M/S V CHANDRASEKARAN', '', 'R HARIPRASAD', 'PURUJIT NARAYANAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.02.2022

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

Crl.O.P.No.1674 of 2022

Marimuthu

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by

... Respondent

The Inspector of Police,

Thirukkannapuram Police Station,

Thirukannapuram, Nagapattinam District.

CrimeNo.25 of 2021

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,

praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest

by the respondent police in Cr.No.25 of 2021 on the file of the

respondent police.

For Petitioner

: Mr. V.Chandrasekaran

For Respondent

: Mr. A.Gokulakrishanan

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference)

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections

147, 148, 120(b), 406, 420, 448, 468 & 471 of I.P.C, in Crime Number

25 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory

bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the

brother-in-law of A1. It is alleged that the defacto complainant

executed power of attorney in favour of A1 with regard to his property

and other business transactions. Thereafter, A1 executed a sale deed

in favour of him without the consent of the defacto complainant. When

the defacto complainant questioned the same, the petitioner along with

other accused threatened her with dire consequnces Hence, the

complaint.

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

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the petitioner falsely implicated in the case and he has not committed

any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that

civil suit is filed by the defacto complainant between himself and

the A1 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam in O.S.No.68 of

2021 and the same is pending. Hence, he prays for grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the

investigation almost completed and further submitted that A1 is the

care taker with regard to the defacto complainant's property and

money transaction. He further submits that petitioner along with other

accused abused the same and hence the complaint was lodged. He further

submitted that co-accused enlarged on bail. However, he opposed for

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also

considering that the investigation almost completed and civil suit is

pending before the trial Court, this Court is inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a condition that the

petitioner along with other accused should co-operate for the trial

proceedings regularly.

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of

fifteen (15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the

Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the learned

Additional Mahila Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam 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:

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs

and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned

may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure

their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police on

every Tuesday at 10.30.am., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness

either during investig