Noorudeen @ Rafi v. State Rep By

Reserved On 08.09.2023 Pronounced On RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 145, 341, 363 of IPC r/w 170 IPC @ Sections 145, 341, 364(A), 506(ii) r/w 170 of IPC in Crime No.553 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the de-facto complainant insisted his family member Jaffer Sadhiq to invest in the laptop business and gave an assurance that they can share the profit. Thereafter, the said Jaffer Sadhiq and Suhail Ahmed were doing the laptop business and incurred a loss. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 16.08.2023, when the de-facto complainant and her husband came back after leaving their elder son in the school, around 08.45 a.m., six henchmen came in a silver colour car and enquired about the de-facto complainant's husband and they represented that they came from the police department and took

away her husband and hence, she lodged a complaint and the same was registered by the respondent police in Crime No.553 of 2023 for the offences as stated supra.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he is no way connected with the offence. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The respondent police has filed the status report.

5. The de-facto complainant and her husband Syed Waseem Akram, who was kidnapped, appeared before the respondent police on 16.08.2023 after registration of the complaint at about 1.00 p.m. and narrated the events wherein the accused persons questioned the said Syed Waseem Akram about Rs.1.80 Lakhs given by Suhail Ahmed to him, assaulted him and threatened him to do away and a criminal intimidation was made.

6. As per the status report, based upon the CCTV footage on 18.08.2023, 19.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 one Syed Imran (A3), Mareeswaran @ Mark Mari (A4), Gokul Prasad (A5), Abdul Raguhman (A6), Iyyappan (A7), Sathish Babu (A8), Sathish Kumar

(A10), Prasanth (A11) were arrested and their confession statements have been recorded. On verifying the CCTV footage, A1 to A9 were present at the time of the occurrence. During the course of the investigation, A3 confession statement reveals that as per the instructions of A1, the de-facto complainant's husband was kidnapped by A4 and they took him by an innova car to A3's house at Sathakadu and enquired him. After some time, the accused persons dropped the kidnapped person at Chinna Sekadu, Manali. The reliance is based upon the confession statement of the A3.

7. Further, the petitioner/A1 is said to have been involved in three serious crimes, which are as follows: Sl.No.

Cr.No. & U/s.

Stage of the case 1.

NIA, Hyderabad Cr.No.2/2014 Pending Trial 2.

Chennai, CCB in Cr.No.343/2010 Pending Trial 3.

Chennai, CBCID Cr.No.2/2014 Pending Trial

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and nature and gravity of the offence and preliminary stage of the investigation and the CCTV footage produced before the Court and the previous bad antecedent of the petitioner in involvement of the three serious cases as extracted supra, I am not inclined to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

mpl

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

mpl