V. Balasubramanian v. The Inspector Of Police(Crime

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.14910 of 2014 V. BALASUBRAMANIAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIME) K. PUTHUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI, CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S. M. RAMU Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 IPC in Crime No.583 of 2014, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. This is second anticipatory bail petition and in Crl.O.P. (MD) No.11618 of 2014, this Court granted anticipatory bail to this petitioner, when the regular case was not registered on condition that the anticipatory bail order will not enure to the benefit of the petitioner on the Police registering a case. Now, the Police have registered a case in Crime No.583 of 2014 and hence, this petitioner has approached this Court for anticipatory bail. Earlier the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre and a failure report has received by this Court.

4. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner had agreed to purchase Mahindra Bolero vehicle of the defacto complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.2,28,000/- with an undertaking that he will pay the hypothecation amount of Rs.1,90,000/- to Shriram Finance and will pay Rs.38,000/- to the defacto complainant. Against the sum of Rs.38,000/-, the petitioner has paid only Rs.5,000/- to the defacto complainant and took delivery of the vehicle. He handed over the vehicle to A2 in this case, who had sold it to some third party. It is alleged by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

defacto complainant that this petitioner has forged the signature of the defacto complainant and has even changed the document of the car.

5. In view of the serious nature of allegation against this petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 19/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE(CRIME) K. PUTHUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI, 2 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14910 of 2014 Date :19/01/2015 NA/22/01/2015/P2/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/