Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/20576/2016dismissed

Shanmugaraja, v. The Inspector Of Police,

2016-12-02Honourable Mr Justice S. Vaidyanathan2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Second day of December Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.20576 of 2016 SHANMUGARAJA, ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED No.5 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, MADURAI.

(CRIME NO.7/2016) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA, Govt. 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 406, 420, 120-B IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act in Crime No.7 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, the petitioner/A5 has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police. 3.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, believing the flimsy words of the petitioner/A5 and other accused, who are working in Madurai Great India Agrotech Ltd., deposited huge amount into their Firm and the cheque issued by the said Firm towards interest, when presented, got dishonoured and when the same was enquired, the petitioner along with other accused threatened the defacto complainant, which resulted in registration of the case.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Executive Manager of the said Firm and he had nothing to do with the alleged offence.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that this

petitioner along with other accused lured various depositors and did not pay the amount even on maturity and the investigation of the case is pending.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is the Executive Manager, who has also played a major role in cheating the public at large, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is absolutely necessary. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/12/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING, MADURAI.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S.S.MAHENDRAPATHY Advocate SR.No.64306

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20576 of 2016 Date :02/12/2016 SMA/PV/SAR-3/20.12.2016:2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/