Ramar Nadar v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twentieth day of March Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.4366 of 2018 1 RAMAR NADAR 2 MAGALINGAM 3 DURAI KALITHASAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAIYUR POLICE STATION, PERAIYUR, MADURAI DISTRICT, IN CR.NO. 11/2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.T.VADIVELAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.ROBINSON Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No.

11 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, who are the administers of the Nadar Uravinmurai Association, are said to have illegally transferred the patta in their favour, thereby, they have created a loss to the Association and its Members. Thus, on complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner are the innocent persons and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the investigation is still pending.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side are considered.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. It is alleged, during the time of occurrence, the petitioners herein have sold out the property, which belongs to the defacto complainant's sons. Even though, the case was registered in the year 2016, according to the prosecution, the petitioners are not co-operating for completing the investigation.

7. Considering the nature of offences committed by the petitioners, this Court came to the conclusion that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much necessary for completing the investigation. Thereby, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 20/03/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE PERAIYUR POLICE STATION, PERAIYUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4366 of 2018 Date :20/03/2018 MKV-PMI-SAR 4/6.4.2018/2P-3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/