Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/18024/2017 of SELVAM @ KESAVA Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017
BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.18024 of 2017 1 SELVAM @ KESAVA 2 GANESH ... PETITIONERS/RANK NOT KNOWN Vs 1 STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand SeventeenPRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
CRL OP(MD) No.18024 of 2017
1 SELVAM @ KESAVA
2 GANESH ... PETITIONERS/RANK NOT KNOWN
Vs
1 STATE REP.BY,
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID-OCU WING, MADURAI DISTRICT, CBCID-OCU WING, MADURAI DISTRICT, IN CRIME NO. 5 OF 2017 ... 1[st] RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
2 MUTHUKUMAR ...2[nd] RESPONDENT/DEFACTO
COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.P.THARMARAJ SANTHOSAM Advocate For Respondents : MR.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police forthe alleged offences punishable under Sections 10 and 24 ofEmigration Act, 1983 and Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.5of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioners havecome forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners arerunning a business of Testing Trade Centres and got proper approvalfrom the Government of India, Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairsand also got a valid license to run the business and the petitionershave selected eligible skilled workers and sent to abroad. But,unfortunately, they have not been given salary and after that theyhave got salary for two months.
4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the petitioners cannot be held responsible and that they havehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/not accepted the recruitment and deputing the persons, as they haveno role to play with regard to the Government in which the persons have been deputed. It is further submitted that the petitioners areinnocent persons and they have not committed any offence and prayfor anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners.5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted thatthe investigation is pending and the charge sheet has not beenfiled.
6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case andtaking note of the fact that the matter is for investigation andtherefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is notrequired. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to thepetitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be releasedon bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within aperiod of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of thisorder, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, oncondition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum ofRs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each with two sureties eachfor a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or thepolice officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of thelearned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Policedaily at 10:30 am until further orders.
[b] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witnesseither during investigation or trial.
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either duringinvestigation or trial.
[d] the petitioners shall not leave Tamil Nadu, if they wantto leave Tamil Nadu, they shall get prior permission from theconcerned Jurisdictional Magistrate.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learnedMagistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actionagainst the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditionshave been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by thelearned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'bleSupreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].
sd/-
TO
1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.IV, MADURAI
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID-OCU WING, MADURAI DISTRICT.
4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.P.THARMARAJ SANTHOSAM Advocate SR.No.37121
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.
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.18024 of 2017
Date :28/12/2017
PK/CM/SAR-2/02.01.2017 : 3P/6C