J. Syed Abudeen, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Sixth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.14973 of 2017 J. SYED ABUDEEN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.466 OF 2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.MOHAMED IDRISH Advocate For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., Section 3 and 4 of Charging of Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, in Crime No.466 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of prosecution is that the petitioner acted as a 'Mediator' in money transaction in between the defacto complainant and one Razak, who is arrayed as A1. In view of the torture made by the petitioner and A1, the defacto complainant consumed poison and admitted in the hospital and lodged a complaint against the petitioner and other accused.

3.The petitioner has also filed another anticipatory bail petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14569 of 2017, was listed today, is dismissed as withdrawn.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner acted only as a 'Mediator' between the defacto complainant and A1. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the state submitted that the petitioner was acted as a 'Mediator', after securing the commission amount, the loan was disbursed in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

favour of the defacto complainant. Since, the loan was not repaid to A1, the petitioner and other co-accused mounted pressure on the defacto complainant by demanding money and thereby, the defacto complainant consumed poison and admitted in the hospital. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner that the petitioner acted as a 'Mediator' in order to utilise the poverty of victims, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Anticipatory bail petition is dismissed.

sd/- 06/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.B.MOHAMED IDRISH Advocate SR.No.34004

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14973 of 2017 Date :06/11/2017 MS/PM-PN/SAR.4/13.11.2017/2P.4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/