Sam Rufus v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20883 of 2021 IN CRL.M.P.NO.11584 of 2021 SAM RUFUS [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SELAIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

(CRIME NO.563/2021) G.MANOHAR [PETITIONER/INTERVENER] [ORDERED AS PER ORDER OF THIS COURT DATED 23/11/2021 IN CRL.MP.11584/2021 IN CRL.O.P.NO.20883/2021] For Petitioner : M/S.Y.DEVA ARUL PRAKASH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener : M/S.M.ALOYSIUS RAJA PRAGASH, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420 read with 34 of IPC in Crime No.563 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- swindled from the Love India Trust Account and created a fake and manipulated the rental agreement.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is the worker of the said Church. He further submitted that the third accused has received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance amount. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- swindled from the Love India Trust Account and created a fake and manipulated the rental agreement. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the that the petitioner along with other accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- swindled from the Love India Trust Account and created a fake and manipulated the rental agreement. He further submitted that the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is no progress in the trial. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the fact that amounts of money is involved and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on, enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 23/11/2021 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, SELAIYUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.Y.DEVA ARUL PRAKASH Advocate on payment of necessary charges +2 CC to M/S.M/S.M.ALOYSIUS RAJA PRAGASH, Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.13273, 13274 CRL OP.20883/2021 IN CRL.M.P.NO.11584 of 2021 Date :23/11/2021 TA-26/11/2021