Varsha Constructions, v. State Of Tamilnadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.08.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Crl.O.P.No.20477 of 2017 Varsha Constructions, Millenium Plaza, 25-26, II Floor, Raipur, Chattisgarh.

Also at INS Rajali, Arakkonam, Vellore District, Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Vineet Kumar Jain.

...Petitioner/Defacto

complainant.

Vs.

1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By Inspector of Police, Arrakonam Police Station, Vellore District.

...1st Respondent 2.Vinod Kumar Verma.

... 2nd Respondent/Accused PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 (ii) of Cr.P.C., to cancel the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/accused by order dated 28.08.2017 in Crl.M.P.No.2328 of 2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam. For Petitioner : Mr. G.Kalyan Jhabakh for M/s.Surana and Surana For R1 : Mr.C.Iyyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the second respondent herein in Crl.M.P.No.2328 of 2017 on 28.08.2017 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the first respondent.

3.The petitioner herein, among other averments seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail, stated that the 2nd https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

respondent/accused having been enlarged on bail on 28.08.2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, Arakonam, on 28.08.2017. Thereafter, he has been contacting all the suppliers and spreading false information stating that he is the partner in the petitioner/defacto complainant's company and invested a lot in the company and has been indulging with a malafide intention to influence the witnesses. He would further submit that the 2nd respondent along with one Mr.C.T.Sundaram, has been writing letters to several suppliers containing defamatory statements and false information about the petitioner/defacto complainant's company. Hence, the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the 2nd respondent herein. 4.On perusal of the order dated 28.08.2017 passed in Cr.M.P.No.

2328 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, it is seen that the trial court, after perusing the materials on record, granted bail on condition to appear before the respondent police at 10.00 a.m., for a period of 30 days. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the accused has been complying with the above condition regularly and further submitted that the investigation in this case has not been completed.

5.Recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the case is pending in the investigation stage, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order under challenge. Hence, this petition shall stand dismissed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar rm To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Arokkonam.

2. The Inspector of Police, State of Tamil Nadu, Arrakonam Police Station,Vellore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.A.MD.Khaleel-Ul-Hug,Advocate, S.R.No.58254(01/10/2018) NM(co) Crl.O.P.No. 20477 of 2017 rrs 11/09/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/