Subbaiyan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventeenth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.18586 of 2015 SUBBAIYAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI.

(CR.NO. NOT KNOWN / 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.DEENADHAYALAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.M.SOLAISAMY, PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 406 and 417 of IPC, in Crime No.60 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on promising to get job in abroad received a sum of Rs.1,37,500/- from the defacto complainant. But he did not get job and did not return the amount to the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant demanded the amount from the petitioner, he threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that he is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner is running a travel agency at Kollidam on 20.03.2011, the defacto complainant approached him to get Air-tickets and he furnished the same. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Due to the money dispute between the defacto complainant and his friend,

the defacto complainant requested the petitioner's travel agency to return the amount and the same was refused by the petitioner. Hence, the defacto complainant has given a false complaint against the petitioner. 4.When the matter was taken up on the earlier occasion for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought time for settling the amount. Today, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the case. That request was rejected.

5.Considering the seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 17/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI +1. CC to MR.M.SOLAISAMY, Advocate SR.No.72419.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18586 of 2015 Date :17/12/2015 AM/31.12.2015/GSV.AN/SAR-I/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/