M. Ganesan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fifteenth day of June Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6094 of 2015 1 M. GANESAN 2 M. RAJENDRAN 3 M. RAMESH 4 M. SELVARAJ ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI, CRIME NO.37/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.G.SHANKAR GANESH Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : MR.C.M.MARI CHELLAIAH PRABU, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A-1 to A-4 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C.

in Crime No.37 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused had purchased materials from the defacto complainant by making representation that they will pay the amount. But, they have not paid the amount of Rs.7,15,000/- and thereby cheated the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the first accused only had business transaction with the defacto complainant and other accused Nos.2 to 4 have been implicated with an ulterior motive. He further submitted that the petitioners are liable to pay only Rs.1,50,000/- and the defacto complainant makes false claim of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed this application by stating that all the accused have joined together and made a representation to the defacto complainant for delivery of the materials assuring to pay the amount. But, they have with criminal intention, cheated the defacto complainant.

5. Heard the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. Considering the nature of allegation made against the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 15/06/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI.

2.

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

+1. CC to M/S.R.G.SHANKAR GANESH Advocate SR.No. 30821 +1cc to MR.C.M.MARI CHELLAIAH PRABU, Advocate in SR.No. 30868 SR/PRV : 17.06.2015 : 2P/5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6094 of 2015 Date :15/06/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/