Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/18670/2015disposed of

C.P. Tamilarasan v. The Inspector Of Police

2015-10-14Honourable Mr Justice K. Kalyanasundaram2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Fourteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.18670 and 19559 of 2015 C.P. TAMILARASAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.1 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.18670 OF 2015 M. MAHENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRL OP(MD) NO.19559 OF 2015 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT.

(IN CRIME NO. 16 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S A.MU.SHARAVANAN Advocate IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Respondent : MS.S.PRABHA, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH THE PETITIONS 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 and 2, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 417, 406 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.16 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2. According to the de-facto complainant viz., Vellaisamy, the first accused had purchased paddy for the value of Rs.7,75,000/-, but failed to pay the amount, when the de-facto complainant asked the first accused, he said the paddy was sold to the second accused and both of them conspired together and cheated the de-facto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the first accused was only acting as a broker and he is nothing to do with the sale made by the de-facto complainant to the second accused. It is further submitted that the second accused had met with an accident and now taking treatment in Chennai and he is liable to pay Rs.3,50,000/-.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the defacto complainant had purchased paddy from the agriculturists and they were sent to the first accused and thereafter, both the accused have conspired together and cheated the de-facto complainant as well as the poor agriculturists.

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

5. Considering the allegations made in the petition, this Court is of the opinion the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. sd/- 14/10/2015 / 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 DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S A.MU.SHARAVANAN Advocate SR.No.61288

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18670 of 2015 Date :14/10/2015 NS/AMF/SAR II/26.10.2015 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/