Sandeep Kumar Rai v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.28748 of 2024:-
1. Sandeep Kumar Rai
2. Rajaram Dubey ... Petitioners Vs.
The State represented by The Sub Inspector of Police, (Crime No.15 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.15 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners :
Mr.R.Surya Kumar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.E.C.Murali Crl.O.P.No.28553 of 2024:-
1. Rajesh Kumar
2. Ghanshyam ... Petitioners Vs.
The State represented by
The Special Sub Inspector of Police, ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.15 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioners :
M/s M. Muthu Nachiar For Respondent :
Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.E.C.Murali COMMON ORDER Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.15 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 477A, 420 and 34 of IPC, the present petitions have been filed seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seek indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. She further submits that the second petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.28553 of 2024 is A3 and he had resigned from the company as early as on 2022. She would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.
3. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners would submit that the accused, by fabrication of documents and falsification of account have diverted the company's money to the tune of Rs.3,38,61,227.86/- and misappropriated the same and cheated the company. He further submits that the investigation is pending and at this stage, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners, they would interfere in the investigation.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit that the accused, by fabrication of documents had diverted the company's fund to the tune of Rs.3,38,61,227.86/- and misappropriated the money and cheated the company. The offence had been committed even prior to the resignation of A3.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record and taking into consideration of the gravity of offence committed by the petitioners, this
Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 06.01.2025 (1⁄2) mn
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.
mn To
1. The Sub Inspector of Police,
2. The Special Sub Inspector of Police,
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
06.01.2025