Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/4608/2015dismissed

P.P. Subramaniyan v. The Sub-Inspepctor Of Police

2015-03-20Honourable Mr Justice P. N. Prakash2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twentieth day of March Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.4608 of 2015 1 P.P. SUBRAMANIYAN 2 T. RENGANATHAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs STATE REP BY THE SUB-INSPEPCTOR OF POLICE ANNA NAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT IN CRIME NO.320/2015, ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.PRASANNA RAJADURAI Advocate For Respondent : Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 364(A) and 379(NP) IPC in Crime No.320 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State.

3. The defacto complainant in this case is one Vasuki Nathan. It is the case of the defacto complainant that on 27.02.2015 around 12:30 in the noon, his son V.G.Karthik Ganesan left by car to Mattuthavani Bus Stand to visit a friend of his. Around 4 in the evening, the defacto complainant received a phone call from the Mobile No.8489836389 and the caller said that they have abducted Karthik Ganesan and directed the defacto complainant to come to the house of a political leader in Tirunelveli. On a complaint to Police, several teams were alerted and the abductors feared that they will be rounded by Police and so they dropped Karthik Ganesan in an isolated spot and fled.

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

4. Police have arrested some of the accused and in the confession statement of one Tamil Mani, the entire sequence of events has been stated. The defacto complainant and his son were running VKL Dairies Limited and were also into finance business. These petitioners had invested some money with the defacto complainant and when the defacto complainant was not able to pay the amount, they decided to abduct the son of the defacto complainant for extracting money from the defacto complainant.

5. Since the allegations against these petitioners are very serious, this is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to them. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 20/03/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 2.THE SUB-INSPEPCTOR OF POLICE ANNA NAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.A.PRASANNA RAJADURAI Advocate SR.No.13850 RL/4 C- 27/3/2015

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.4608 of 2015 Date :20/03/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/