Madras High CourtCRL OP/17635/2021dismissed

K.M.Musthafa v. State Rep.By

2021-09-24Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.17635 of 2021 1 K.M.MUSTHAFA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 A.SARABEEVI 3 M.ABDUL SALAM Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH TEAM-I, CHENNAI.

CR.NO.170 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. V.S.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : M/S.T.N.BHVANESWARAN, Advocate 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 406, 420, 34 and 506(i) of I.P.C. in Cr.No.170 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have received a sum of Rs.2.20 Crores from the defacto complainant assuring that they will secure Railway Contract for supplying cool drinks in his favour and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant entered into an agreement on 27.09.2019 and the first petitioner agreed to pay the entire amount and the transaction is only inbetween the first petitioner and the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the third petitioner is their son and that petitioners 2 and 3 are not even aware of the transactions. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that though it is claimed that the first petitioner and the defacto complainant entered into an agreement on 27.09.2019 and the first petitioner agreed to pay the entire amount, subsequently, the said agreement was cancelled by the first petitioner on 10.02.2020 and the said fact is suppressed for obtaining anticipatory bail from this Court.

5.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the amount involved in the case is a huge amount and further submitted that the investigation is in preliminary stage.

6.Considering the fact that huge amount is involved in the case and since the investigation is in preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 7.This criminal original petition is accordingly dismissed. -sd/- 24/09/2021 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, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH TEAM-I, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. V.S.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17635/2021 Date :24/09/2021 TA-04/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/