James v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty First day of April Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.6414 of 2015 JAMES ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.6 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIVIL SUPPLIES CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, MADURAI WING, MADURAI.

(CRIME NO.153 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.M.VEILKANIRAJU, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is A6 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406, 420 of IPC r/w section 7(i)(a)(ii) of E.C. Act 1955, in Crime No.153 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 01.04.2015 one Mr.S.Ayyappan, who is working as Regional Manager in the Tamil Nadu State Civil Supplies Corporation, Madurai made a surprise raid at P.S.Bricks at Angadimangalam Village, Madurai District and found more than 500 paddy bags in the said place and on inspection, he further found that the bags contains paddy with damaged bricks and he also found that a lorry bearing Registration No.28-AQ-4626 was loaded with 400 bags of paddy adulterated with clay and paddy husk. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner's name does not find place in the FIR and he was falsely implicated in this case, on the basis of the confession of the co-accused and even according to the confession of the co-accused, the petitioner had introduced the owner of the brickkiln to A1 for the storage of paddy and except this, there is no specific allegation made against the petitioner.

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

4.It is further submitted that the main accused viz., A1 was released on bail by the trial court in Cr.M.P.No.980 of 2015, dated 20.04.2015 and some of the other co-accused were granted bail in Cr.M.P.Nos.886, 922 and 955 of 2015 by the trial court. 5.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner is the main accused in this case and the investigation reveals that the petitioner conspiring with A1 Sathiyamoorthy and the employees of the Tamil Nadu State Civil Supplies Corporation, made adulteration of paddy with damaged bricks and paddy husk and sold 1068 bags of paddy to the Tamil Nadu State Civil Supplies Corporation for Rs.8,35,000/-. 6.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) also produced the confession statements of the co-accused and vehemently opposed this anticipatory bail petition stating that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary in this case. 7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious allegation made against the petitioner, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 21/04/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIVIL SUPPLIES CRIME INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT, MADURAI WING, MADURAI.

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

+1. CC to M/S.M.VEILKANIRAJU, Advocate SR.No.21072. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.6414 of 2015 Date :21/04/2015 msm 23.04.2015 p2/4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/