Imran Khan v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifth day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.25029 of 2021 1 IMRAN KHAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 RIYAZUDEEN Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BAZZAR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.668/2021) For Petitioner : M/S C.D.SUGUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : R.ABUBUCKER 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 Sections 406, 420 of IPC in Crime No.668 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant taken a loan of Rs.19,00,000/- from the first petitioner herein and repaid the same. After receipt of the entire amount, the first petitioner is sending threatening messages demanding more money. As against the second petitioner the allegation is that he received six cars from the defacto complainant in lieu of Rs.8,00,000/- payable to the first petitioner, further the defacto repaid the said amount and the second petitioner failed to handover the cars inspite of the payment by the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant has received a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from the first petitioner on 23.05.2019 and executed a bond in favour of the first petitioner. However inspite of lapse of several months, the defacto complainant has not repaid the said sum of Rs.19,00,000/-. Recently only the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- to the first petitioner and balance amount of Rs.8,00,000/- remains outstanding. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
In order to pay the balance sum of Rs.8,00,000/- the defacto complainant handed over six cars to the custody of the second petitioner and received Rs,8,00,000/-. Till date he has not repaid the said sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the first petitioner or the second petitioner. Hence the complaint.
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.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that so many cases pending against the petitioners. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, lot of cases pending against the petitioners, like nature considering the contact of the petitioners, it needs detailed investigation including custodial interrogation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 05/01/2022 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, BAZZAR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S C.D.SUGUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.25029/2021 Date :05/01/2022 INBA▬10/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/