Vijayaraman @ Ramu v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Seventeenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13282 of 2021 VIJAYARAMAN @ RAMU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, V-5, THIRUMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 101 (CR.NO.100/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.D.PADMANABHAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S. C.E.PRATAP, 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 at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.100 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 collected the construction materials from the defacto complainant worth about of Rs.58 Lakhs Thereafter, the petitioner neither paid the rent nor returned the construction materials, which led to the filing of the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that A1 had rented the construction materials from the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that this is the second bail application of the petitioner and earlier occasion, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

this Court was dismissed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner neither paid the rent nor returned the construction materials. It is further submitted that investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that large amounts of money is involved and that the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on, enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioners indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 17/08/2021 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, V-5, THIRUMANGALAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI-600 101 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.D.PADMANABHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13282/2021 Date :17/08/2021 APN 21/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/