C.Murugapandi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.17350 of 2017 C.MURUGAPANDI ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADUPATTY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT CRIME NO.358/2017 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.R.SANTHANAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who are arrayed as Accused Nos.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 4 of Tamilnadu protection of charging exorbitant interest Act, 2003 & 506 (1), 306 of the I.P.C in Crime No.358 of 2017, dated 19.11.2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's father, borrowed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four lakhs fifty thousand only) from one Paulraj, he initially stated that the interest of 4% for the above said amount, thereafter, the A1 increased the interest at the rate of 10%. As the interest rate exorbitant the defacto complainant's father not able to pay the same, he committed a suicide.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A2 submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution and the Accused No.1 already arrested and released on bail by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the State would submit that accused no.1 arrested and released on bail. The petitioner and other accused person demanded huge interest from the defacto complainant's father, he could not be able to pay the exorbitant interest and committed suicide, thereby, the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

complainant not able to filed a complaint before the respondent police in time.

5. considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) clearly state that the petitioner and other accused person collected the amount from the defacto complainant. In view of the above the offence committed by the accused persons, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail is dismissed. sd/- 18/12/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KADUPATTY POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

DAS GJM/RR/SAR-3-28.12.2017-2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17350 of 2017 Date :18/12/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/