Mrs.Gaja Lakshmi, Partner, v. The State Rep. By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20.12.2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM Crl.O.P.No.7631 of 2017 Gajalakshmi

...Petitioner/Defacto

Complainant

Versus

1.The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery, Crime No.94 of 2015.

..1stRespondent/Complainant 2.Sanjay Kumar Sharma @ Sharma...2nd Respondent/Accused 4 Prayer: The Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to cancel the bail granted to the Second respondent/4th accused by order dated 04.04.2016 made in Crl.O.P.No.3086 of 2016.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kumaresan For Respondents : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the second respondent/4th accused in Crl.O.P.No.3086 of 2016, dated 04.04.2016.

2.The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.94 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent. When the second respondent moved the petition for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.3086 of 2016, this Court, by order dated 04.04.2016 granted anticipatory bail on condition that the accused, who is arrayed as A4, shall pay Rs.10,00,000/-, to the defacto complainant by way of Demand Draft, within a period of three weeks.

3. Subsequently, Crl.M.P.No.5231 of 2016 has been filed by the accused/second respondent seeking modification of the order dated 04.04.2016. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 28.04.2016, the learned counsel for the second respondent sought permission to deposit the amount to the credit of crime https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

number instead of directly paying the amount to the defacto complainant. However, this Court has not accept the submission of the second respondent and directed him to make payment to the defacto complainant.

4. It is now represented by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent that the conditional order of this Court dated 04.4.2016 has not been complied with by the second respondent/4th accused and as per his undertaking, he has not paid the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the defacto complainant.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent submitted that now the case was transferred to Investigation Unit Crime against Women, Vepery, Chennai.

6. Despite service of notice, the second respondent has not chosen to enter his appearance either through his counsel or in person.

7. In the light of the submissions of the learned counsel as referred supra, the anticipatory bail granted by this Court to the 2nd respondent / 4th accused in Crl.OP.No.3086/2016, dated 04.04.2016 is cancelled and the investigation agency is at liberty to secure the second respondent, for the purpose of investigation. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ms To The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Vepery. Chennai.

2.The Investigation Unit, Crime apinet Women, Vepary, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court ,Madras. Crl.O.P.No.7631 of 2017 A.SK(01/02/2019) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/