K. Shanmugavel 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) No.11018 of 2016 1 K. SHANMUGAVEL 2 K. SARAVANAKUMAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED No.3&6 Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING-II, MADURAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO.5/2014... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.ARAVIND RAJ Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.3 and 6 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) of IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused were running a company in the name of Makkal Desham Agro Tech-Private Limited and they had received deposits from various persons and defaulted around Rs.20 lakhs in making repayment. On complaint case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The first accused is the Managing Director of the Finance Company and the other accused did not actively participate in the alleged commission of offence and they have been roped in merely because they are the Directors of the Company and the prime accused was arrested and released on bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that this is the third anticipatory bail petition and the earlier petitions for anticipatory bail filed by these petitioners were dismissed on merits and the petitioners have actively participated in the commission of offence and they have cheated the general https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

public and swindled Rs.20 lakhs. There is no change of circumstance.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious nature of allegation made against the petitioners and also considering the fact that the earlier petitions for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners were already dismissed by this Court and the submission made on the side of the respondent that there is no change of circumstance, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly this petition is 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 ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING -II, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11018 of 2016 Date :06/07/2016 smn SH/AAL-MPA/SAR-I:13.07.2016:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/