Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/10402/2017dismissed

T.Vinoth v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-10-03Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017 T.VINOTH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Rank Not Known in CRL OP(MD)No.10402/17 1 M.JAYAPRADHA 2 Dr.T.ARAVINDH 3 Dr.DELPHIN SUPRIYA 4 V.THANGARAJ 5 M.THILAGAVATHI 6 T.VENKATESH ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN CRL OP(MD)No.11798/17 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT, ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2017 in CRL OP(MD)No.10402/17 CRIME NO.20/2017 IN CRL OP(MD)No.11798/17 For Petitioner : Mr.B.SANTHANAM RAJESHKUMAR, Advocate in both the petitions For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the petitions For Intervenor : Mr.S.RAMESH, Advocate for Mr.S.

SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate in both the petitions PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 406, 427 and 403 IPC., in Crime No. not known of 2017 and 120(b), 468, 471, 408, 477(A), 420 and 506(ii) IPC., in Crime No.20 of 2017, respectively seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10402 of 2017, while he was a manager in the de-facto complainant's petrol bunk, has misappropriated nearly Rs.2,44,72,735/- and the same is admitted by him vide promissory document dated 03.02.2016, wherein he promised to return the amount https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and also he admitted that the said amounts were transferred to his family members (petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11798 of 2017) and also in order to prove that transactions the bank details are marked before this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10402 of 2017 alone responsible for the said transaction and other family members have nothing to do with the transaction. He further submitted that the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11798 of 2017 are innocent persons and they have falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD).No.10402 of 2017 admitted his guilt and execute a unregistered promissory note in favour of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the statement of accounts obtained from the bank indicates that the amounts were transferred to his family members.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in both petitions. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

sd/- 03/10/2017 / 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 +2. CC to Mr.V.MAHARAJAN Advocate SR.Nos.32041, 32042 +1 CC TO Mr.V.RAGHAVACHARI, Advocate, Sr.No.32087 JAM/10.10.17/PM-PN/SAR 2 / 2p-6c

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017 Date :03/10/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/