Madras High CourtCRL OP/16097/2020dismissed

J.Noman v. State Rep. By

2021-04-16Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL.OP.Nos.16097, 16099, 19189 of 2020 J.NOMAN ... PETITIONER IN ALL CRL.O.P'S VS.

STATE REP.BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, (CRIME), AVINASHI POLICE STATION, TIRUPPUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.1822 OF 2020 ... RESPONDENT IN CRL.O.P.NOS.16099 & 19189 OF 2020 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PULLIAMPATTI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.628 OF 2020 ...RESPONDENT IN CRL.O.P.NO.16097 OF 2020 For Petitioner :M/S.R.C.PAUL KANAGARAJ Advocate(IN ALL THE PETITIONS) For Respondent : MR. S.KARTHIKEYAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (IN ALL THE PETITIONS) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.628 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and his wife joined together and advertised in the newspaper as if they arranged loan for lower interest. On seeing the said advertisement, the defacto complainant made a call to the petitioner and asked loan for lower interest. For which, the defacto complainant paid Rs.4 lakhs and executed a blank cheque and also promissory note. After receiving Rs.4,00,000/-, the petitioner and other accused handed over fake note of Rs.60 lakhs to the defacto complainant and instructed him not to spend the money till the balance of Rs.40 Lakhs given to him. Hence, the respondent police registered a case.

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

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. All the allegations only against A1, not against the petitioners and prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there are several cases pending against the petitioners similar in nature and investigation is still pending. A1 has already been arrested. Therefore, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also of the fact that the case is in the initial stage of the investigation and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 16/04/2021 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, PULLIAMPATTI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME), PULIAMPATTI POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

CC to M/S. R.C.PAUL KANAGARAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL.OP.Nos.16097, 16099, 19189 of 2020 Date :16/04/2021 RVR 21/06/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/