Murugan v. State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 27.12.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 323, 363, 342 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.777 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused, due to money dispute with the friend of the defacto complainant, they forcibly entered into the house of the defacto complainant, abducted him and confined him in various places in Tamil Nadu and attacked him and forced him to transfer Rs.5,00,000/- from the account of the wife of the defacto complainant to the account of another person and thereafter, left him. Hence the case. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and due to money dispute, he has been

falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that He further submitted that the petitioner is prepared to comply with any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is in judicial custody from 27.12.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner. 4.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that due to money dispute with the friend of the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with other accused forcibly entered into the house of the defacto complainant, abducted and confined him in various places in Tamil Nadu, attacked him and forced him to transfer Rs.5,00,000/- from the account of the wife of the defacto complainant to the account of another person and thereafter, left him after obtaining several signatures from the defacto complainant in the blank stamp papers. He further submitted that the amount was also not recovered from the accused. He also submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the gravity and nature of the offence committed by the accused that they have also obtained several signatures in the blank stamp papers from the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21.02.2023 vkr

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

vkr

21.02.2023