K.Muthu Ram Kumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Nineteenth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN CRL OP(MD) No.23070 of 2013 K.MUTHU RAM KUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2013. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.SIVA AYYAPPAN ASSOCIATES Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANDASAMY Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Totally there are six accused and this petitioner is arrayed as A1 and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.1115 of 2013, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.According to the de-facto complainant, her husband was the owner of the Wagnor car bearing Registration No.

TN55 P 4961 and after his demise, it was under the care and custody of her son and the car is used to be parked in the premises owned by the petitioner who is running the business under the name and style of "Sri Krishna Private Car parking". It is further case of the de-facto complainant that she kept the car in the petitioner's car parking premises and when she came there for taking her car, she found that car was missing and repeatedly asked the petitioner herein as the non availability of car and on enquiry later on came to know that he along with the other accused had hypothecated the car.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire allegations in the complaint as against him are false and concocted for the reasons that the de-facto complainant is in the habit of giving her car for hire without any necessary endorsement in the registration certificate and only with a view to extract money, she has lodged a false complaint.

4.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) would submit that investigation is pending.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in

the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai and on 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 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/- 19/12/2013 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.V MADURAI 2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE MADURAI 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE S.S.COLONY POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

CR. NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2013.

+1. CC to M/S.SIVA AYYAPPAN ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.63704 AA/27.12.2013/ 2p- 6c/

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.23070 of 2013 Date :19/12/2013 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/