Abranantham v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirteenth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.8770 of 2016 ABRANANTHAM ... PETITIONER/9th ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING - 2, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT CR.NO.1 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S V.M.BALAMOHAN THAMPI Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.9, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 17.03.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) of IPC and Section 5 of TANPID Act, 1997, in Crime No.1 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition on the ground that he has received a letter from the wife of the petitioner instructing him to withdraw the petition. The said request is rejected.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons were running finance company and collected huge amounts from number of persons and cheated them. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences.

4.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner is arrayed as A9. The petitioner is only as canvassing agent. A1 is Managing Director. A2 to A8 are the Directors and petitioner collected money and handed over to A1. The petitioner name was not found in the FIR and based on the confession of A1 only, this petitioner was arrayed as A9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) filed counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner and other accused persons were running finance institution in the name and style of Crown Agro India Ltd., without permission and collected huge amounts from number of depositors and purchased properties from various places. As on 01.06.2016, 175 complaints were received stating that they have been cheated more than Rs.6,45,72,622/-. Investigation is pending. The documents are yet to be collected. The petitioner filed first bail application in Crl.O.P(MD)No.6343 of 2016 and the same was dismissed on 20.05.2016. Subsequently, suppressing the earlier bail application which was dismissed, the petitioner filed another bail application in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8037 of 2016 and the said petition also was dismissed. Suppressing all these facts, the petitioner filed the present application for bail in Crl.O.P(MD)No.8770 of 2016.

6.Considering the serious allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner suppressed the fact that already he has filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6343 of 2016 and Crl.O.P(MD) No.8037 of 2016 and the same were dismissed by this Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 13/06/2016 / 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 - 2, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT 2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI 3 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8770 of 2016 Date :13/06/2016 AA/SKS-RR/SAR-III/17.06.2016/2p-4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/