Rajendran v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.11282 & 11482 of 2016 1 RAJENDRAN 2 VENNILA ... PETITIONERS /ACCUSED NO.1&2 IN CRL OP(MD).No. 11282/16 1 P.V.RAVICHANDRAN 2 MUTHUKUMAR ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.3&4 IN CRL OP(MD).No. 11482/16 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 5/2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S K.GOKUL Advocate (CRL OP(MD).No.11282/16) For Petitioner : M/s.V.SANKARANARAYAN(CRL OP(MD).No.11482/16) For Respondent in both petitions : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. 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.1 to 4, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 of IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on promising to get Medical Seat for daughter of defacto complainant, the petitioners received 14 lakhs. Subsequently, they did not get any medical seat. When the same was enquired, the petitioners stated that the amount has been deposited with college and admission will be given. On enquiry in the college, the defacto complainant came to know that no amount was deposited in the college. When he demanded the amounts from the accused, all the accused threatened him with dire consequences.

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

3.The case of the petitioners is that A1 & A2 stated that they introduced A3 & A4 to the defacto complainant and the amounts were paid by the defacto complainant to A3 and A4 and they have not received any amount. A3 & A4 stated that they have not received any amount from the defacto complainant. Only A1 & A2 were received the amount from the defacto complainant.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that investigation is pending.

5.Considering the serious nature of allegations made against the petitioners and also considering the fact that the accused persons accusing each other that other petitioners have received amount, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, these petitions are dismissed. sd/- 18/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, PUDUKOTTAI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S K.GOKUL Advocate SR.No. 38028 JA-DB/SAR.I/22.7.2016/2P:4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11282 and 11482 of 2016 Date :18/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/