Sundari v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26/07/2019 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.RAJAMANICKAM CRL OP(MD). No.8878 of 2019 1.Sundari 2.Murugan ... Petitioners/Accused Rank Not Known Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District.

Crime No. 4 of 2019. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.V.Karuna, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.V.Neelakandan,Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.4 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Memo filed by the petitioner dated 22.07.2019 is recorded The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC seek anticipatory bail.

2. Heard both sides.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the first petitioner is the wife of the second petitioner and she has not been arrayed as an accused. He further submitted that the second petitioner is the father of A1 and he was working as a Checking Inspector in TNSTC. He further submitted that the second petitioner is residing at Dindigul whereas his son A1 is residing at Tanjore and he has no contact with A1. He further submitted that the main allegations are against A1 alone and therefore he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the second petitioner and his son (A1) have jointly gave a false

promise to the defacto complainant that they will make arrangement for getting job in transport department and received Rs.10,70,400/- on different dates and the said amount was transferred to the bank account of the second petitioner and after receipt of the said amount, they did not make any arrangement for job and also refused to return the said amount. He further submitted that the custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary. Hence he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.In the First Information Report, it is stated that the second petitioner and his son (A1) gave promise to the defacto complainant that they will arrange for job in the transport department and believing their words he has sent Rs.10,70,400/- on various dates through the account of State Bank of India, Kannivadi Branch (A/c.No.33387744740) and Canara Bank,Anumantharayankottai Branch (A/c.No.156711013522) and thereafter the second petitioner and his son did not make any arrangement for getting job and also refused to return the amount.

6. Considering the allegations made against the petitioner and also the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that custodial interrogation of the second petitioner is absolutely necessary , this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the second petitioner.

7. Hence the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed against the second petitioner. Insofar as the first petitioner is concerned, her name does not find place in the First Information Report. Hence this petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner also.

sd/- 26/07/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8878 of 2019 Date :26/07/2019 TK/PN/SAR.1/31.07.2019/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/