P.Meenakshi Sundaram, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4242 of 2018 P.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP. THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM CRIME POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

IN CRIME NO.2132 OF 2017. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.SHEIK ABDULLAH Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC in Crime No.2132 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused had received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the de facto complainant after giving false promise to arrange job in PWD Department to the de facto complainant. After receiving the said amount, they have not arranged any job as promised at the time of receiving the money. Hence, this case has been registered. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he is no way connected with the offences, and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, A1 being the father of the petitioner, received a sum of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rs.8,00,000/- from three persons, after making promise for arranging job in PWD. After receiving the said amount, A1 has not arranged any job as promised. During the time of settling the dispute on behalf of A1, A2 issued cheque for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the said cheque also has not been enhanced. At the out set, the misappropriated amount of Rs.8,00,000/- have not been repaid to the persons who gave to A1. Therefore, if, anticipatory bail is granted in favour of this petitioner, it will prejudice the process of the investigation. Accordingly, custodial interrogation is necessary for completing the investigation.

6.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 19/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GNS TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM CRIME POLICE STATION, MADURAI.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.M.SHEIK ABDULLAH Advocate SR.No.4315 GJM/PN/SAR-I-3.4.18-3P-4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4242 of 2018 Date :19/03/2018 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/