Mohammed Irban @ Irfan v. State Of Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.15085 of 2021 1 MOHAMMED IRBAN @ IRFAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] 2 MOHAMMED PAZIL @ MOHAMMED FAZIL Vs STATE OF REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PAZHAVANTHANGAL POLICE STATION, CHENNAI CRIME NO. 15/2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. RAHMAN SHERIFF.F 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 petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 IPC of I.P.C. in Criminal No.15 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were running a business under the name and style of Ca Rental Zone and they have entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant (owner of the car) and others and rented out their cars on the pretext that they will give a monthly of Rs.20,000/- to each car, whereas, even after several demands, the petitioners/accused have not paid the rent to the owners as agreed and hence the complaint and FIR.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that it is strange to note that defacto complainant had rented out his car merely on a belief on the petitioners/accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and his father had promised him to pay Rs.20,000/- as monthly rental amount. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is pending in this case and hence he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners and further till date, the petitioners are not returning the Car to the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 24/08/2021 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, PAZHAVANTHANGAL POLICE STATION, CHENNAI .

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S. RAHMAN SHERIFF.F Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.8985 CRL OP.15085/2021 Date :24/08/2021 APN 02/09/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/