Naresh Kumar v. Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of November Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.17008 of 2016 NARESH KUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 Vs STTAE : INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI DISTRICT.
(CRIME NO.24/2016) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.S.RAMESH BABU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : Mrs.S.PRABHA, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 403, 409 and 420 I.P.C in Crime No.24 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.
2.
Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3. The case of the prosecution is that there are 6 accused in this case and A1 is the Manager of the Bank, A2 is the Assistant Manager of the Bank, A3 and A4 are Office staff, petitioner/A5 is the Ex-Manager of the Bank and A6 is the Appraiser. During the Inspection and Account Audit of Kadamalakundu Branch of Pandian Grama Bank conducted by the Regional Manager it was found that there is a shortage of Jewels in 18 jewel loan accounts and the accused have committed the offence of cheating.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has worked in the Branch as Branch Manager only for a period of eight days i.e., from 09.06.2016 to 16.06.2016 on deputation and the occurrence is said to have happened only during August, 2016.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.
Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that
investigation is pending and the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court and he has already complied with the conditions imposed by this Court in the interim anticipatory bail orders.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner has worked as a Branch Manager only for a period of 8 days and he has already complied with the conditions imposed by this Court, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary at this stage.
7. In view of the same, the interim anticipatory bail already granted by this Court on 14.09.2016 is made absolute.
8. Since the offence is said to be serious one and the customers have almost lost their credibility with the bank, the respondent police is directed to expedite the investigation in the matter and recover the jewels of the customers and to file final report as expeditiously as possible.
sd/- 15/11/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI.
2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT.
3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI DISTRICT 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI +1. CC to M/S.S.RAMESH BABU Advocate SR.No.69085
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.17008 of 2016 Date :15/11/2016 SJ TE/SKS-RR/SAR-III : 23/11/2016 : 2P/6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/