R.Bhuvanesh v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI R.BHUVANESH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 1 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODAL PUDUR POLICE STATION, KOODAL PUDUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.226/2021 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.PALANI VELAYUTHAM.S Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTICHAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.226/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.226 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has two cars bearing Reg.No.TN 58 AT 2243(Honda WRV) and TN 59 BR 6086 *Hyundai i20). The petitioner A2 are father and son. The accused persons borrowed cars from the defacto complainant for rent for their business purposes. The petitioner gave the rent regularly for more than one year and thereafter, he failed to pay the rent as per agreement. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the Court below already granted anticipatory bail in Cr.M.P.No.7295 of 2023 and the same was ordered on 21.12.2023. However, the petitioner could not appear before the concerned Court within the stipulated time and hence, the petitioner filed an extension petition in Crl.M.P.No.173 of 2024 and the same was also ordered. However, the petitioner was in Chandigarh and unable to appear before the concerned Court. Accordingly, he prayed for anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that already trial Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and he failed to execute sureties in time. Instead of filing extension of petition before the trial Court, the petitioner filed the present petitioner, which is not 2/4

sustainable one. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the present petition. 5.It is seen that the Court below already granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file an extension of petition before the concerned Court. If any petition is filed by the petitioner, the trial Court shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders.

sd/- 19/02/2024 / TRUE COPY / /02/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

GNS TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODAL PUDUR POLICE STATION, KOODAL PUDUR, MADURAI DISTRICT.

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

+1 CC to M/s.S.PALANI VELAYUTHAM, Advocate ( SR-2131[I] dated 20/02/2024 ) 3/4

ORDER

IN Date :19/02/2024 SA/VR/SAR. /27.02.2024/4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 4/4