Raja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fifth day of November Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.22290 of 2015 1 RAJA 2 PALANIVEL 3 MANIVEL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 1 to 3 Vs 1 State through THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBAKONAM WEST POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

IN CRIME NO. 615 OF 2015 ... Respondent/Complainant 2 A. JANAKAR ... RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S N.MADHAVA GOVINDAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.11.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.615 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner gave advertisement that they would arrange loan for the individuals. When the defacto complainant approached them, they informed that for arranging loan he should pay 4% commission. The defacto complaint paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance commission. After receiving the amount, the petitioners tried to escape from the place. On complaint, the case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioners is that they are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence and no such incident was happened. While on 03.11.2015 they were in hotel, the police party arrested the petitioners and the amount also recovered from the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioners gave a advertisement that they would arrange loan for the individuals and demanded 4% commission for arranging loan. Believing the same, the defacto complainant gave Rs.50,000/- as advance commission. After receiving the commission, the petitioners tried to ran away and caught hold by the defacto complainant and the investigation is going on to find out the involvement of the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the charges against the petitioners are serious in nature, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 25/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, SUB JAIL, KUMBAKONAM 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KUMBAKONAM WEST POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

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

sm:sks-rr:SAR I:30.11.2015:2P/4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22290 of 2015 Date :25/11/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/