Murali v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eleventh day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.8413 of 2016 1 MURALI 2 CASILDA 3 XAVIER ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOODALPUDUR POLICE STATION,MADURAI CITY.
(CR.NO. 190/2016) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondent : M/S.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) 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 294(b),406,420 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 4 of TNPWH Act in Crime No.190 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are doing real estate business and they pressurised the defacto complainant to buy Plot for sale and the defacto complainant gave Rs.70,000/- on two occasions. The petitioners gave receipt only for Rs.7,000/- in the name of her son and did not execute the sale deed. When the defacto complainant having chit transactions with the petitioner, there was a some dispute with chit transactions. When he demanded for execution of sale deed, the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioners.
3. There was no representation on behalf of the petitioners for the last hearing, hence, the matter is posted today under the caption for dismissal. Today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioners received a sum of Rs.70,000/- for execution of sale deed and subsequently, they did not execute the sale deed and they did not return the money. When the defacto complainant demanded for execution of sale deed, the petitioners threatened her with dire consequences and the investigation of the case is pending.
5. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and that the first petitioner has received a sum of Rs.70,000/- and promised to sell the land and subsequently, he failed to sell the land and threatened the defacto complainant that they will murder her and that the investigation is in preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
sd/- 11/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOODALPUDUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
trp JA-KBM/SAR.I/21.7.2016/2P:3C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.8413 of 2016 Date :11/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/