A.Sathish v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL.O.P(MD)No.2934 of 2023 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fifteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Three PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL.O.P(MD)No.2934 of 2023 1 A.Sathish 2 Aysha Parveen

...Petitioners/Accused

-vsThe State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Tiruchirappalli.

(in Cr.No.1469 of 2022)

...Respondent/Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent Police with respect to Cr.No.1469 of 2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Vedhagiri Chalka For Respondent : Mr.A.Albert James Government Advocate (Crl.side) ****

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420 and 120B of IPC and Section 4(1) of Chit Fund Act in Crime No.1469 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution, as per the de-facto complainant, is that A1 and A2 are the Directors of Eaglo Sathish Chits Private Limited and the petitioner was working as an employee under A1 and A2. The accused persons conducted Diwali Chit Fund and collected money from the deposits and after the chit period was over, the petitioner along with other accused have misappropriated the matured amount and failed to repay the amount to the depositors. Hence, the case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL.O.P(MD)No.2934 of 2023 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case based on the confession of the arrested accused. He would also submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions, that may be imposed on him. Hence, he would seek for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that this is the fourth application for anticipatory bail and the earlier petition filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court. Further, he would submit that the offer of the petitioner is not genuine and that there are more than 1000 victims who have been cheated. Hence, he would strongly oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) and considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 15/02/2023 / TRUE COPY / /02/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

CMR TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Fort Police Station, Tiruchirappalli.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2934 of 2023 Date :15/02/2023 NA/BUC/SAR-2/24.02.2023/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2