T.Murthy v. The State Repby

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fourteenth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15873 of 2021 T.MURTHY [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REPBY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI ACB, CHENNAI.

(R.C.M.A1.2019A 0013) For Petitioner : M/S.N.SURIYAMUTHU Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.SRINIVASAN, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 08.06.2021 for the alleged offence under Sections 120-B,409,420 of I.P.C and r/w 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Substantive offence at CBI, ACB, Chennai in R.C.M.A.I 2019 A 2013, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent has registered the case based on the complaint that was lodged on 11.03.2011, the Branch Manager, Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank, Pallavaram Branch. It is alleged that the petitioner who is working as Jewel appraiser at the Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Society Bank, Pallavaram Branch, Chennai while sanctioning the jewels loans had caused loss of Rs.60,56,000/- by involving in criminal activities . Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the petitioner is only a jewel appraiser and sanctioning of loan were done by officials who were on the rolls of Kancheepuram Central Co-operative Bank. Hence he is no way connected

with the alleged offence. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the petitioner who is incharge of appraising jewel loans were found in possession of spurious jewels to the tune of Rs.60,56,000/- . He further submits that the petitioner has moved an anticipatory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.11112 of 2011 which was dismissed for non prosecution and the petitioner moved an application seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.57 of 20111 and the same was dismissed on 19.04.2013 and the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.24339 of 2011 was also dismissed. He further submits custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary to this Case. Hence he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and the amount involved in this case are huge and the earlier applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court further no change of circumstances for considering present bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 14/09/2021 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, CBI ACB, CHENNAI.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S.N.SURIYAMUTHU Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.10001 CRL OP.15873/2021 Date :14/09/2021 INBA 28/09/2021