Ravi Chandra Pandian v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9038 of 2016 RAVI CHANDRA PANDIAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.4 Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 310 OF 2016) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S R.GANDHI Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No.4, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 364-A IPC, in Crime No.310 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that one Daisy Rani borrowed money from one Jancy and did not repay the same, even after a long time. Hence, Jancy approached her relative one Ponnupandi, who is a practising Advocate. The Advocate Ponnupandi and his friends kidnapped the said Daisy rani in Maruthi vehicle bearing Regn.No.800 DX and threatened her with dire consequences and also misbehaved with her and also beaten her with stick. On complaint case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.According to the petitioner, he is working as Chief Reporter in Daily Anjal. One Advocate, by name, Udaysingh informed him that he can arrange a loan of Rs.50,000/- for women through Social Welfare Department and he demanded Rs.2,000/- per person, for preparing quotation and Project Report. The petitioner collected Rs.2,000/- from 38 persons and gave Rs.76,000/- to the said Udaysingh. He informed that he will arrange the loan in few days and introduced one Suseela @ Daisy Rani, the de-facto complainant. She informed the petitioner that she would arrange the loan of Rs.1,00,000/- and demanded Rs.1,100/- per person, for expenses. The petitioner through Sasikala, Pandiammal, Parvathi and Amutha collected a sum of Rs.3,02,500/- from 275 persons and the same was handed over by the petitioner and the abovesaid ladies to Udaysingh and the de-facto complainant on 26.09.2015 at Annapoorna Tower Lodge, Anna Bus Stand. The de-facto complainant has taken photographs of four ladies and got signatures from them and promised https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

that they will arrange the loan shortly. The de-facto complainant also issued I.D. Cards to four ladies, as they are the Secretary of Nakshatra United Trust. Subsequently, the said Udaysingh and Daisy Rani failed to get the loan. When the petitioner demanded repayment, they refused to pay and threatened him with dire consequences. The petitioner also gave a complaint to Anna Nagar Police Station on 15.04.2016. The de-facto complainant is absconding from that date. While so, the de-facto complainant has given the complaint stating that the petitioner kidnapped her on 04.06.2016. On that date, he went to Sathurakiri Sundaramahalingam Temple and returned only late night. He is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He has no contact with Pownpandi and as a counterblast, the de-facto complainant has given the false complaint against the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and other accused kidnapped the de facto complainant and misbehaved with her and also threatened her with dire consequences to pay the amount to the said Jancy and the investigation of the case is pending.

5.It is seen that the petitioner collected monies from women known to him and handed over the same to Udaysingh and the de-facto complainant on their promise to obtain loan and subsequently, the de-facto complainant and the said Udaysingh cheated the poor women. The petitioner has given a complaint on 15.04.2016 against the defacto complainant and the said Udaysingh and the investigation is pending.

6.The allegation against the petitioner is that due to previous enmity, petitioner along with other accused kidnapped the de facto complainant and misbehaved with her and also threatened her to pay the amounts. Considering the abovesaid facts and also considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and other accused persons, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 20/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,OTHAKADAI POLICE STATION,MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to M/S R.GANDHI Advocate SR.No.31627 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9038 of 2016 Date :20/06/2016 AA/SKS-RR/SAR-III/14.07.2016/2p-4c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/