Muthuvengadachalam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI MUTHUVENGADACHALAM ... Petitioner / Accused No.3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, KARUR DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.4/2024).

... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner :

M/s.P.Ponraj, Advocate For Respondent :

Mr.P.Kottaichamy, Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER : FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.4/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner / Accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 406 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.4 of 2024, on the file of the respondent Police, seek 1/3

anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has executed a partnership deed along with Accused Nos.1 and 2 to start a petrol bunk business, for which, the defacto complainant has given a sum of Rs.71,27,830/- to the accused persons and the accused persons have agreed to give 70% share to the defacto complainant from the profit of the business. But the accused persons neither gave the profit from the business nor repaid the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioner herein is the father of the second accused. He would further submit that though some transaction was made between Accused Nos.1 and 2, however, there is no money transaction between the petitioner and the above said accused persons. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons have jointly received the alleged amount from the defacto complainant and they did not repay the amount and hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/3

5. Considering the serious allegations made against the petitioner herein, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 28/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /04/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TSG To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Karur District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN Date :28/03/2024 ED/ VR /SAR- (08/04/2024) 3P / 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3