R.Rajendran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.1259 of 2015 R.RAJENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.1 Vs THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUPPUKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

CR. NO.189/2014. ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.SELVAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- This is the second anticipatory bail application. The earlier petition in Crl.O.P.No.16366 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn. It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused in this case is running GK Win Groups Real Estate Private Limited and had promised the subscribers that plots will be allotted to them. In this regard, the defacto complainant has paid around Rs.12 lakhs to GK Win Groups Real Estate which has cheated him. Earlier this Court by a detailed order dismissed the anticipatory bail application in Crl.O.P.No.16106 of 2014 dated 12.01.2015 in respect of the accused 3 and 4.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submits that the petitioner herein is Teacher by profession and has received several awards including Mahaguru award.

3. On the contrary it is seen that the petitioner was actively involved in promoting the business of made by the accused company and this had inspired confidence in the mind of the investors to invest money in the said company.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought to my notice an agreement dated 17.05.2014 entered into between the principal accused in this case and this petitioner wherein it is stated that the principal accused will take up liabilities of the company. This agreement itself clearly shows that this petitioner was involved in the affairs of the company and he has been indemnified only with regard to civil disputes by the principal accused. Since the petitioner has actively involved himself in the affairs of the accused company and the common investors in the village had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

deposited money because they believed that this petitioner will not cheat them, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. This petition is dismissed.

sd/- 27/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUPPUKOTTAI TALUK POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI TS/30.01.2015/2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1259 of 2015 Date :27/01/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/