Arunkumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6903 of 2021 ARUNKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-1, NORTH BEACH POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.97/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.C.ARIVAZHAGAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.PRABAKAR Additional Public Prosecutor 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 alleged offence under Sections 143, 147, 452, 353, 183, 187, 427, 294(b) of IPC and Section 133 of Customs Act, 1962 in Cr.No.97 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused doing business in the name of one plus technologies. When the officials of Customs conducted search in the above said company, they found some goods, documents and a bag of currency. During the search, the petitioner and other accused persons alleged to be scolded the officials in filthy language and also interrupted not to conduct search in the company. Hence, based on the complaint given by the officials, the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner and other accused persons. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is working in another company.

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

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that when the customs officials made search at unboxes company, the petitioners along with other accused persons interrupted not to conduct any search in the said company and quarrelled with the officials and abused them in filthy language. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the fact that the submissions made by the learned counsel and the serious nature of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 09/04/2021 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 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, B-1, NORTH BEACH POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

CC to M/S.C.ARIVAZHAGAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 4665 CRL OP.6903/2021 Date :09/04/2021 rvr 17/04/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/