V.Kannan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/03/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble MR.Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN V.Kannan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nagiahpuram Police Station, Madurai District.
(Crime No.29 of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: Mr.N.Ananthapadmanabhan, M/s.APN Law Associates Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- for Anticipatory bail in Crime No.29 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under section 380 of I.P.C., in Crime No.29 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the complaint of the de-facto complainant that a vehicle bearing registration No.TN 58 AU 5622 was removed from the premises of Dr.Siddha and Siddha Food Tech, Ayurvedhic manufacturing unit at Siddhireddipatti, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District. It is submitted that the de-facto complainant Arunkumar is the husband of Dr.Meera, BYNS and the vehicle involved in the present case stands
in her name.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner has removed a white colour Mahendra Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.TN 58 AU 5622 belonging to his wife Meera, from the premises of Siddha Food Tech situated at Siddhi Reddipatti, Thirumangalam Taluk, Madurai District on 29.01.2020 without their knowledge.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that a perusal of the FIR would clearly show that the vehicle involved was entrusted to the petitioner and was in his legal custody and no case of theft is either communicated or attracted for such custody.
6. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the State submitted the husband of the owner of the vehicle is the de-facto complainant. He understand the said news through one Velayutham with whom the petitioner is working. Based upon the complaint, the vehicle was seized from the house of the petitioner herein.
7. The contention of the petitioner is that he is working under the de-facto complainant and was understand that the matter is in investigation.
8. Taking note of the fact, I am not inclined to grant the relief for the present. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 23/03/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGIAHPURAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.N.Ananthapadmanabhan, APN LAW ASSOCIATES, Advocate ( SR-5684[I] dated 23/03/2020 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.5078 of 2020 Date :23/03/2020 PKN SRS/ JC/ SAR-III/ 02.06.2020/ 3P/4C