Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/11935/2017dismissed

Sathiyendran v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-10-09Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Ninth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.11935 of 2017 SATHIYENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLATHIRAKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 37 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.MANIVELPANDIAN, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC., in Crime No.37 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant has paid Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) in total on various dates to the petitioner for getting VAO job. The matter relates to job racketing. In order to failure of return back the money, the defaco complainant lodged a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant for interest as hand loan. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence the petitioner prays for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that the matter is relating to job racketing. The petitioner himself admitted that Rs.3,00,000/- received from the defacto complainant as hand loan for getting the VAO job and investing is pending.

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

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and also considering the fact that no leniency will be shown in favour of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 09/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VALLATHIRAKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, PUDUKKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11935 of 2017 Date :09/10/2017 MS/CM-MSA/SAR.4/23.10.2017/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/