Rajesh Kumar v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20941 of 2021 RAJESH KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FLOWER BAZAAR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO.1481 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.P.SATHIYANATHAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 353, 506(1) of Indian Penal Code & 24 (1) of COTTAPA ACT in Cr.No.1481 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as Deputy State Tax Officer in Commercial Taxes Department. When he was in vehicle check up, a vehicle loaded with banned tobacco products weighing about 4,000 Kgs was seized by the defacto complainant and thereafter, the petitioner who is working as manager in AVG logistics Ltd, appeared along with the driver of the vehicle and intimidated and prevented the Government officials from doing their duty. Thereby, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the vehicle while moving from Chennai to Bangalore, the respondent police detained the vehicle and seized the goods. However, the petitioner is willing to abide any condition as imposed by this Court. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have illegally transported banned tobacco products weighing about 4,000 Kgs and intimidated the Government officials from performing their duty. He further submits that the investigation is pending in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation levelled against the petitioner and if he is granted anticipatory bail by this Court, there is a chance of absconding, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

-sd/- 08/11/2021 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 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, FLOWER BAZAAR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CC to M/S.P.SATHIYANATHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20941/2021 Date :08/11/2021 TA-17/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/