Madras High CourtCRL OP/2785/2021dismissed

Vijayamariappan v. The Inspector Of Police

2021-06-22Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.2785 of 2021 AND CRL.M.P.No.5001 of 2021 1 VIJAYAMARIAPPAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 SUGHEAR KUMAR Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SINGANALLUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S.D.KANAGASUNDRAM, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.473 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners approached the defacto complainant and asked Rs.25,00,000/- as hand loan. Hence, the petitioner gave Rs.25,00,000/- thereafter, the defacto complainant failed to pay the amount. Hence, the complaint was registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has re-paid the entire loan amount to the defacto complainant and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant by not re-paying the loan amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. He further submits that when the defacto complainant demanded the petitioner to re-pay the money for his daughter's marriage, the petitioner deliberately avoided to repay the loan amount. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that it is a case of cheating. He would submit that the petitioner received Rs,25,00,000/- as hand loan from the defacto complainant and failed to re-pay the same. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. .Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and the amount involved is very high, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. -sd/- 22/06/2021 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 SINGANALLUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.A.SARANRAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges +1 CC to M/S.D.KANAGASUNDRAM, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6688 CRL OP.2785/2021 AND CRL.M.P.No.5001 of 2021 Date :22/06/2021 TA-26/07/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/