Susila v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twenty Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.14129 of 2017 1 SUSILA 2 SHANMUGASUNDARI 3 NATARAJAN 4 PARTHIBAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Nos.2,4 to 6 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TIRUNELVELI CITY.

CRIME NO.29/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : Mr.J.JEYAKUMARAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.A.GANAPATHY RAMAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/accused Nos.2, 4 to 6, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 IPC, in Crime No.29 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were running jewelry shop and introduced a gold jewels savings scheme and collected huge amount from 3080 general public. Now cheated person lodged a complaint before the respondent police in Crime No.29 of 2017.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners were running a genuine business and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and whatever the amount collected from the general public, they are regularly paying the amount to the general public. 4.Mr.S.A.Ganapathy Raman, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor / defacto complainant would submit that the petitioners collected huge amount from the general public by producing focus documents.

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

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the state would submit that nearly 3080 persons were cheated by the petitioners and investigation is still pending. No recovery was made from the petitioners.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

sd/- 23/10/2017 / 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 CITY.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to Mr.S.A.GANAPATHY RAMAN, Advocate SR.No.33164 JAM/26.10.17/PM-PN/SAR 2/ 2P-4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14129 of 2017 Date :23/10/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/