Muruganandam v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Eighth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3360 of 2022 MURUGANANDAM [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-2, MADAVARAM MILK COLONY POLICE STATION, MADAVARAM, CHENNAI.
CRIME NO.816/2021 For Petitioner : M/S N.IYYAKANNU Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner herein apprehending arrest in a case registered by the police on 28.09.2021 for a theft of Innova car is before this Court seeking anticipatory bail.
2. However, on perusal of the FIR and the status report filed by the respondent police, this Court finds that on 04.06.2021 one Rajinikanth of Madhavaram has lodged a complaint regarding missing of Innova car bearing Regn. No. TN 01 AR 1204 which was parked in front of his house. Later on 02.10.2021 during the routine vehicle check up, Manjambakkam police intercepted an Innova car and enquired the occupant Mr.Muruganandam to show the RC book. He left the car informing the police that he will bring it from his house, but he did not turn up. The respondent police thereafter found that the said Innova car is the missing car and the subject matter of the F.I.R registered on 28.09.2021 based on the complaint given by one Rajinikanth/defacto complainant.
On further investigation, it is revealed that the car was originally handed over by the Rajinikanth / defacto complainant to Muruganandam. Muruganandam mortgaged the car to Sundar and Tamilselvam, that the said Tamilselvam impersonated the signature of the owner for raising money, mortgaged the car to the tune of Rs.1,60,000/- without the consent of the owner. Hence the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.
earlier complaint registered under Section 379 has been altered into offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC on 02.10.2021.
3. In the said illegal mortgage and forgery, the said petitioner has played a pre vital role. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) states that the petitioner herein is absconding and not available for investigation if the anticipatory bail is granted, they cannot be proceed further in the case.
4. Considering the facts disclosed and the stage of investigation as discussed as above, this Court finds that it is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. -sd/- 28/02/2022 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, M-2M MADAVARAM MILK COLONY POLICE STATION, MADAVARAM, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S N.IYYAKANNU Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.3360/2022 Date :28/02/2022 RVR 03/03/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/