A. Ayyavukumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty First day of January Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.792 of 2015 A. AYYAVUKUMAR ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRUKKANKUDI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT, CRIME NO.12/2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.SENTHIL KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.C.RAMESH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondents police in Crime No.12 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the petitioners are now before this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner had taken Rs.3 lakhs from the de-facto complainant on 30.05.2010 on the assurance of getting a job for her husband in a School. Thereafter she neither get the job nor return the money. In this regard, the petitioner himself has given a bond in writing to the de-facto complainant on 19.05.2013, wherein he has stated that he had taken the money and given it to another person, who had assured him to get the job. But that person had taken away the money and gone. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed a suit in O.S.No.193 of 2014 before the District Munsif Court, Aruppukottai for a bare injunction restraining the de-facto complainant from disturbing him except by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ due process of law. It is the case of the petitioner in the suit

that he has received Rs.50,000/- from the de-facto complaint and he has given the said amount to the de-facto complainant but still the de-facto complainant is demanding more money. This Court is unable to appreciate this contention. There are enough incriminating evidence against this petitioner and therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 21/01/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE IRUKKANKUDI POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DT, 2 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.792 of 2015 Date :21/01/2015 NA/29/01/2015/P2/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/