Nazurdin v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.12916 of 2016 1 NAZURDIN 2 HAZEENA BEGUM ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 & 5 Vs STATE REP BY 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY CITY, TRICHY.

(CRIME NO. 4 OF 2016) 2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COMMERCIAL CRIME INVESTIGATION, TRICHY. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S N.SHANMUGA SELVAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.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.4 & 5, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 408, 409, 418, 420, 468, 471 and 477(A) IPC, in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners and other accused colluded together with the staff of the Bank pledged fake jewels and caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.21,78,639/-. On complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners pledged original jewels and only after verification, loan was sanctioned. The petitioners are not responsible for any irregularities committed by the staff of the Bank. A.1 was granted anticipatory bail by this Court and other accused were arrested and enlarged on bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners and other accused in

collusion with staff of the Bank pledged jewels and caused loss to the Bank and the first petitioner caused loss to the tune of Rs.3,58,415/- and the second petitioner caused loss to the tune of Rs.7,92,004/-. He would further submit that the petitioners are not available in the address given in the loan application. Earlier, the petitioners filed anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD)No.5980 of 2016 and at the time of hearing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners took several adjournments to deposit the amount misappropriated by the petitioners. Subsequently failed to deposit the same. This Court by an order, dated 12.07.2016 dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners and there is no change in circumstances and therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners and other accused caused loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.21,78,639/- and they are absconding.

6.Considering the serious nature of allegation levelled against the petitioners and there is no change in circumstances from the date of dismissal of earlier petition, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 27/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH,TRICHY CITY, TRICHY.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COMMERCIAL CRIME INVESTIGATION,TRICHY.

3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S N.SHANMUGA SELVAM Advocate SR.No.40111

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12916 of 2016 Date :27/07/2016 AA/ARK-PV/SAR-I/01.08.2016/2p-5c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/