Gajendran, v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Thirtieth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.15986 of 2016 GAJENDRAN ... PETITIONER/ SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE, REP. BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIVAKASI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAKASI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CR. NO. 561 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S N.SATHISH BABU Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who is arrayed as accused no.2 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.08.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b),342,302 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w. Section 34 of IPC, in S.C.No.256 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli and hence, seeks bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Chartered Accountant practicing in Coimbatore. The petitioner is the father of one Rajasakthi, who is the friend of defato complainant. In the year 2012, the petitioner requested the defacto complainant to certify the account of Guru Match Works, Sivakasi and the defacto complainant has also prepared the balance sheet and certified the accounts. But, the petitioner evaded payment. Subsequently, there was no contact between the petitioner and defacto complainant family. While so, the defacto complainant came to the know that the petitioner forged the signature and seal of the defacto complainant in the balance sheet prepared for Nisha Travels and filed before the authority as if the defacto complainant had prepared and certified the account of Nisha Travels. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and his name has been falsely implicated in this case.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has forged the signature of the defacto complainant by using the seal of the defacto complainant, prepared balance sheet and filed before the authority, as if the defacto complainant prepared and certified the account and on complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail he will abscond and tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 30/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE SIVAKASI TOWN POLICE STATION, SIVAKASI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 2 THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE, DISTRICT PRISON, VIRUDHUNAGAR 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.15986 of 2016 Date :30/08/2016 trp SH/SS-3/SAR-III :07.09.2016:2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/