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

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirty First day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.755 of 2018 MR.P.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE 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 Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.P.SENGUTTUARASAN Advocate 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 alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C., 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 8 lakhs from the defacto 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 a job as promised at the time of receiving the money. Hence this case has been registered against the petitioner and other accused.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person, he has been falsely implicated in this case, he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and pleads for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the investigation is not completed.

5.The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for either side considered. Totally three accused persons were implicated and the petitioner herein is the second accused in this https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

case. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence, the father of the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from three persons by giving false promise to arrange job in PWD, but the petitioner failed to fulfill the same. So the de facto complainant insisted the petitioner to repay the amount for which, the petitioner herein issued cheque, but, the same was dishonored. So the entire facts disclosed the fact that with dishonest intention, the father of the petitioner has received the amount from three persons. Subsequently, in order to evade from the liability, the petitioner issued cheque. So all these facts clearly shows the 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/- 31/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

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.1683

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.755 of 2018 Date :31/01/2018 MKV-CM-VR-SAR 2/9.2.2018/2P-4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/