R. Senthil Kumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11254 of 2022 R. SENTHIL [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.974 OF 2020.

For Petitioner : M/S. M.G.JEYASEELAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.V.MEGANATHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.974 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running a lorry booking office at Madurai and he got an booking offer to transport Iron Scrap material through RN Transport to transport 26360 Kg of old iron scrap. The lorry was driven by one Ramesh and the defacto complainant had also given cash of Rs.20,000/- to the said driver and thereafter, since lock down was declared, the driver was unable to move the vehicle and the vehicle has been halted at Hosur. Thereafter, the goods were kept under the custody of one Kanniram and photographs of the same were taken by the petitioner. After lock down was over, when the defacto complainant asked the said Kanniram to return the goods, it was informed that the goods were taken by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as stated by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that this is the fourth anticipatory bail petition of the petitioner and the subject properties were not recovered from the petitioner. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the subject properties were not recovered so far and considering the serious allegation levelled against the petitioner and as there is no change of circumstances for considering the present anticipatory bail petition, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 15/06/2022 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, KRISHNAPURAM POLICE STATION, DHARMAPURI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. M.G.JEYASEELAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.11254/2022 Date :15/06/2022 RW-21/06/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/