Arukumar v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP NO. 884 of 2025 1.Arunkumar 2.Venketesh Petitioner(s) /A-6 and A-10 Vs The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.

Crime No.12 of 2024 Respondent(s) Narendrakumar Intervenor/defacto complainant For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Sridhar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor(s):

Mr.D.Ravichandran

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.12 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 467, 408 and 409 of Indian Penal Code, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused who was working as Manager, Team Leader and Relationship Executives in the Sriram Finance, Kolathur Branch, Salem by fabrication of documents and forged loan applications cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. Hence the case.

3. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He would submit that the customer have given fabricated documents and on believing the same, the petitioners have released the amount. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail is that, the second accused, Silamparasan, who was working as Branch Team Leader in the defacto complainant's company, along with other Executives by furnishing false loan applications had cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. He would further submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the accused who was employed in the company as Manager, Team Leader, Executives has conspired together and cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. He would submit that the huge public money is involved and he vehemently objected for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police, the learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant and perused the materials available on record, considering the facts and the submissions, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 29.01.2025 (7/13) dsn A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

dsn 29.01.2025 (7/13)