Karthick v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11362 of 2022 KARTHICK [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MALAYAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.27 OF 2022) For Petitioner : M/S.M.IDHAYAMARY Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, 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 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.27 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons have ordered three items of Laptops through online. After receipt of the electronic goods, they returned old Laptops as if they received damaged Laptops and thereby, they have cheated the defacto complainant. That apart, the petitioner and his wife are arrayed as A1 and A2 in this case. A2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 31.03.2022. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted as against the petitioner and hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that totally there are six accused in this case and the petitioner and his wife are arrayed as A1 and A2. They are involved in 6 previous cases which are similar in nature. It is alleged that they used to order electronic goods through online and after receipt of the same, they used to return the damaged one as if they received the damaged goods and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioners have committed very heinous offence and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required, hence this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 18/05/2022 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, MALAYAPALAYAM POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1CC to M/S.M.IDHAYAMARY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.7322 CRL OP.11362/2022 Date :18/05/2022 CSK 19/05/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/