S.Puthu Raja v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Sixth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.10611 and 10619 of 2016 1 S.PUTHU RAJA 2 G.RAJA ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.6 AND 7 IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.10611/2016 AND PETITIONERS/ACCUSED(RANK NOT KNOWN) IN CRL.OP(MD)NO.10619/2016 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY, (CRIME NO.32/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT IN BOTH THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S R.ANAND Advocate in both the Petitions For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the Petitions 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 an alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime Nos.31 and 32 of 2015 respectively, seek anticipatory bail.

2. On 29.06.2016, when these matters were taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners. Today, when these matters are taken up for hearing, Mr.Balasubramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the petitions, as this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. The said request is rejected.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is having two accounts in IDBI Bank, Kokkirakulam, Palayamkottai in her name and her son Selvaraj's name. The petitioners along with other accused conspired together and fraudulently transferred a sum of Rs.39,30,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- respectively to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

account of A1 by playing fraud and complaint cases have been registered.

4. The case of the petitioners is that they are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case and A1 and A2 along with others colluded together and committed offence.

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) submitted that the petitioners along with other accused conspired together and fraudulently transferred a sum of Rs.39,30,00,000/- and a sum of Rs.5,75,000/- respectively to the account of A1 by playing fraud and the investigation of the case is pending to find out the involvement of the petitioner.

6. Considering the serious allegation made against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are dismissed. sd/- 06/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI RL/3C/2P/PEK/SARII/21/7/2016

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) NoS.10611 AND 10619 of 2016 Date :06/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/