M.Kasirajan v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Eighth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6476 of 2021 M.KASIRAJAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, GUINDY, CHENNAI.

CR.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.R.VENKATESAN Advocate For Respondent : MR. R.PRABAKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420, 409, 76(1) and 4(1) of IPC, in Crime No.7 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had conducted a chit business in the name of Ambattur Nadargal Dharma Paripalana Sangam registered No.333 of 1988. Further, the petitioner along with other accused persons had collected a money from the General Public. The said amount was not returned to the depositors.

The petitioner along with other accused person had cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner did not conduct any chit business and the wordy quarrel between the petitioner and other members, he was falsely implicated in this case. It is pertinent to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

mention that two suits were filed in O.S.Nos.159 and 160 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsiff, Ambattur. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner was a president and others are secretary of the said Sangam. He would further submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the fact that the huge amount was involved and the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 08/04/2021 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, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING, GUINDY, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, CHENNAI-104 CC to M/S.R.VENKATESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.6476/2021 Date :08/04/2021 RG.04.05.2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/