D.Franklin v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of March Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.4689 of 2022 and CRL.MP.NO.3370 of 2022 1 D.FRANKLIN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 CYINTHIA FRANKLIN Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, COIMBATORE.

(CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN /2022) SHEILA JOSHUA [ INTERVENING PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT ] (ORDERED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 15.03.2022 MADE IN CRL.MP.NO.3370 OF 2022 IN CRL.OP.NO.4689 OF 2022) For Petitioner : M/S.C.S.DHANASEKARAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S.A.THIRUMARAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C in Crime Number not known of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

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

3. It is reported that the petitioner herein was summoned to appear before the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore city on 10.03.2022, since the petitioner did not appear before the respondent for enquiry.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that if the petitioner granted anticipatory bail, he will not cooperate with the investigation unless coercive measures taken, it is difficult to secure him.

5. The learned counsel for the intervener says that under the pretext of religious preaching petitioners have cheated around 2,17,00,000/- and they are absconding.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners though pleads that the petitioners are innocent and the money was not received with any intention of cheating and indicate they have approached the consumer Court for recovery of Rs.15,15,321 from the De facto complainant.

7. This Court, on going through the affidavit filed by the petitioner and the FIR as well as the status of the investigation stated by the prosecution, finds that the quantum of money involved in the crime is very huge and the conduct of the petitioner indicates that he will not abide any condition. Hence, the anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 15/03/2022 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, CITY CRIME BRANCH, COIMBATORE.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.C.S.DHANASEKARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 4004 CRL OP.4689/2022 & CRL MP.3370/2022 Date :15/03/2022 RW 29/03/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/