Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/8307/2016withdrawn dismissed

K. Pandi v. The Inspector Of Police

2016-07-28Honourable Ms.Justice V.M.Velumani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.8307,8311,8313 and 8332 of 2016 1 K. PANDI 2 PANDIYAMMAL ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.8 AND 9 IN CRL OP(MD)No.8307 of 2016 PANDIARAJAN ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 10 IN CRL OP(MD)No.8311 of 2016 P.NAGAPRABHU ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO. 2 IN CRL OP(MD)No.8313 of 2016 1 P.ARUN 2 SUNDAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NOT KNOWN IN CRL OP(MD)No.8332 of 2016 Vs STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODAL PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 647 OF 2016. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN ALL THE PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S.V.BASKARAN Advocate(IN ALL THE PETITIONS) For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl.

Side) (IN ALL THE PETITIONS) For Intervenor : M/S.AJMAL ASSOCIATES , Advocate (IN ALL THE PETITIONS) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 294(b), 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.647 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners A1 and A2 who are the employees of the defacto complainant misappropriated a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- each and at the time of enquiry, the petitioners agreed to settle the amount and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

subsequently, the petitioners and their family members of A1 and A2 went to the Company of the defacto complainant and abused him in filthy language and also threatened with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner / A2 in Crl.O.P(MD).No.8313 of 2016 and A1 have misappropriated the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- each in the Company of the defacto complainant and when the action was being taken against them, A1 an A2 along with all the petitioners went to the Company of the defacto complainant and abused the defacto complainant and threatened with the dire consequences and the investigation of the case is pending.

5. Considering the serious nature of allegations that A1 and A2 mis-appropriated a sum of Rs.30,00,000/- and agreed to settle the amount and subsequently, all the accused persons joined together and attacked the defacto complainant and threatened him with dire consequences, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners .

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. sd/- 28/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODAL PUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT, 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

TRP CSL/SK-SKN/SAR-I/05.08.2016: 2P/3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.8307,8311,8313 and 8332 of 2016 Date :28/07/2016 (1/2) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/