Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/23624/2013 of POONKODI Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 30 December 2013
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.23624 of 2013 POONKODI ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDHUKOTTAI POLICE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Thirtieth day of December Two Thousand ThirteenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASHCRL OP(MD) No.23624 of 2013
POONKODI ..PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED
Vs
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NAGAMALAI PUDHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, NAGAMALAI PUDHUKOTTAI, MADURAI.CR.NO.467 OF 2013
..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.AN.RAMANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondentpolice for the alleged commission of offences punishable under sections 3and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act,2003, in Crime No.467 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police, seeksanticipatory bail.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the defacto complainant isthe neighbour of the petitioner and both of them are ladies and thedefacto complainant received a sum of Rs.50,000/- and she repaid a sum ofRs.4,90,000, but the accused is demanding a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from thedefacto complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitionerand the defacto complainant were good friends and the petitioner hadmortgaged her jewels with Muthoot Finance and raised some loan for a sumof Rs.4,50,000/- and given the money to the defacto complainant and thatthe defacto complainant had not repaid any amount to her and on accountof which, the petitioner has given a complaint to the Superintendent ofPolice as the measure of counter blast, the defacto complainant has comeup with this false allegation.
4. Be that as it may, the matter in which, this Court thinks fit togrant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.
5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, inthe event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.VI, Madurai and on executing a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a likesum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and onfurther condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondentpolice as and when required for interrogation. The petitioner shallcomply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C.https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/Scrupulously.
6. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate withina period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made readyfailing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 30/12/2013 / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)
TO1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.VI, MADURAI.
2 -DO-THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.
3 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAI PUDHUKOTTAI POLICE STATION, NAGAMALAI PUDHUKOTTAI, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.AN.RAMANATHAN Advocate SR.No.64481 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.23624 of 2013 Date :30/12/2013
PBK 31/12/2013 2P/6C