Godwin.E v. Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice R. PONGIAPPAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3631 of 2022 GODWIN.E [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE BY:

[ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE K-7 POLICE STATION, ICF CHENNAI-38.

CRIME NO.558 OF 2020 For Petitioner : M/S. T.K.S.GANDHI 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, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.558 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner to lease out house property. But neither the house was leased out nor the amount paid was repaid thereby the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide any conditions imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police raised objection stating that the petitioner being the owner of the house represented the defacto complainant and three others and said that the house is for lease and received a sum of Rs.27,50,000/- and later refused to return the same. He would further submit that if this type of petitions are released on bail, they would try to tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation.

5. Submissions made by the learned counsels on either sides are considered.

6. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. Admittedly, the amount which was alleged to be received from Mohan, Sayina Begum, Sathyavani and Selvi is not recovered. In the absence of custodial interrogation, it may not be possible for the respondent Police to recover those amount. Therefore, it is a case for completing investigation custodial interrogation is necessary.

7. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 15/02/2022 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 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE K-7 POLICE STATION, ICF CHENNAI 38.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. T.K.S.GANDHI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.3631/2022 Date :15/02/2022 JPA 18/02/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/