Jayakumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.355 of 2022 1 JAYAKUMAR [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 KALAIYARASI Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-1, SAIDAPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI CITY CRIME NO. 810/2021 For Petitioner : M/S.A.M.RAHAMATH ALI Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervenor : M/S G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under sections 420 of IPC, in Crime No.810 of 2021 seeks anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 & A2. It is alleged that A1 is the owner of the firm Janani Traders and A2 is his wife and further the petitioners were doing cashew nuts business. The defacto complainant sent a total sum of Rs.46,99,000/- to the petitioners account towards purchasing of cashew nuts but the petitioners failed to supply the same. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way connected with the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that there was logistical delay in the shipment and the petitioners are taking steps for the import.

Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervener raised objections for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the defacto complainant invested a sum of Rs.46,99,000/- (entire amount were paid through account) for purchasing the cashew nuts. Thereafter on verification submits that no such container was arrived till date.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that more about Rs.49 lakhs were involved and the investigation is pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner .

6.Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and also considering that the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 21/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-1, SAIDAPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.A.M.RAHAMATH ALI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.355/2022 Date :21/01/2022 RVR 31/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/