Rajasekar Reddeyar @ R.T.Mani v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN Crl.O.P.No.4420 of 2021 Rajasekar Reddeyar @ R.T.Mani ... Petitioner -VsThe State by The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.1396 of 2020) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.1396 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Town Police Station, Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Senthilkumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The case has been heard through video conference Totally, there are eight accused and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of I.P.C, in Crime No.1396 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was engaged in jewellery business. A2 and A3 approached the defacto complainant stating that A1 is engaged in gold business and he has purchased gold in a cheap rate. Hence, the petitioner had took him to Krishnagiri and he has also received a sum of Rs.95 lakhs. At that time, a Skoda car belongs to the petitioner came there and taken the
defacto complainant with money. Thereafter, they have followed the petitioner and other accused and took money. When he questioned the same, they have criminally intimidated and cheated him. Hence, a criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and now apprehending arrest, the present petition has been filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not involved in the offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case and only the car belongs to the petitioner has been used by the driver and he is no way connected with the occurrence. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is the main accused and he is already having three cases. On some ill-motive, he used to collect money from various jewelery shop owners and cheated them. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is bad antecedents against the petitioner and he has cheated more than Rs.95 lakhs, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 22/03/2021 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.I, KRISHNAGIRI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAGIRI TOWN POLICE STATION, KRISHNAGIRI, KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.
+1 CC to M/S.M.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.3910 CRL OP.4420/2021 Date :22/03/2021 cs 17/04/2021