Madras High CourtCRL OP/16791/2020dismissed

Gurumoorthy v. State Rep By

2020-10-28Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.10.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.16791 of 2020 1.Gurumoorthy 2.Anandaraj @ Anandan ... Petitioners Vs.

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing II, Chennai.

Crime No.8 of 2015.

... Respondent Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Connection with the Crime No.8 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Magesh For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act in Crime No.8 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Banumathi is that the petitioners along with other accused persons running a finance company in the name of 'Ayyan Promoters' and collected deposit to a tune of Rs.4 crores and thereby cheated the depositors. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against them and the petitioners are only the employees of the company. He would also submit that the main accused has been arrested and enlarged on bail. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contended that, the petitioners and other accused persons are the directors of the 'Ayyan Promoters' and in the guise of running a finance company the petitioners collected deposit and cheated a sum of Rs.4 crores from 274 victims.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 28/10/2020 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, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING II, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. D.MAGESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16791/2020 Date :28/10/2020 cs 05/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/