Manishwaran v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.2157 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 20/02/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL OP(MD). No.2157 of 2020 Manishwaran, ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The Inspector of Police, Sivagangai Town Police Station, Sivagangai District Crime No.51/2020.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.A.Mohan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.A.Karthick PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- for Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 51 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

2. The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under section 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.51 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.2157 of 2020 3.The defacto complainant is one Balakumar. His specific case is that based on the assurance made by the petitioner, he had transferred a sum of Rs.1,45,000/-. On the last occasion, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that he did not receive any amount from the defacto complainant herein. Therefore, the case was adjourned to enable the prosecution to make verification in this regard.

4.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that from the account of Pavan Teja, on 29.04.2019, the said amount was transferred to the account of the petitioner herein. In the FIR, it has been specifically stated that Manishwaran/petitioner herein confirmed the receipt of the said amount. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner gave an assurance that if a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- was invested, the defacto complainant and his wife can earn about Rs.30,000/- per month. It is obvious that the petitioner had put the defacto complainant to wrongful loss. This Court wanted to know if the petitioner will be willing to settle the issue, so that, the matter can be given quietus. No fruitful offer is forthcoming from the petitioner. Therefore, it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 20/02/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2157 of 2020 Date :20/02/2020 rmi AE/JC/SAR-III (26.02.2020) 2P 3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2