Madras High CourtCRL OP/20258/2021dismissed

S.Sudha v. The State Rep By

2021-11-24Honourable Mrs Justice T.V.Thamilselvi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20258 of 2021 1 S.SUDHA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 SARAVANAN Vs THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CYBER CRIME, CRIME BRANCH, TIRUPUR DISTRICT.

(CR.NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.C.B,MURALIKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.BASKAR ADVOCATE PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No. not known of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the proprietor of the said firm and the firm has dealt with the export business to the Srilanga and other places through the shipment and also air cargo. The theme of the business is that the traders who lived outside India has placed their order for the purchase of the items as specified by the trader, will be purchased as per their specification and send it to the respective trader either by ship or by air cargo as per their contract. The payment will have to be made before the order being placed to the firm. The above transaction to be carried in the proper way.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners are not cooperate for the enquiry and the issues involved in the case of cognizance and investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), investigation is at initial stage as well as the objection raised by the intervenor, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 24/11/2021 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, CYBER CRIME, CRIME BRANCH, TIRUPUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.C.B,MURALIKRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20258/2021 Date :24/11/2021 CSK 29/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/