Asiya Kumar Alias v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9139 of 2016 1 ASIYA KUMAR ALIAS AGSHYAKUMAR 2 SANKARI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.1 and 2 Vs The State rep.by THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT, CR.NO.684 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINAN For Petitioner : M/S N.ANANDAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.Kannithevan, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.SR.A.Ramachandhran, Advocate 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 406,420,294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.684 of 2016, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the Supervisor and Manager of the Company viz., ESS ESS Global Logistics, run by his friend Senthilkumar. The petitioners gave a job work to the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant executed a work for Rs.22,59,632/-. The petitioners paid only a sum of Rs.7,62,774/- on various dates and failed to pay the remaining amounts. When the defacto complainant and his friend demanded the same, the petitioners abused them in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.

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. He further submitted that it is a civil in nature and the defacto complainant is trying to give criminal colour to civil litigation.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that on receiving complaint the enquiry was conducted by the respondent

police and the petitioners are agreed to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- on 02.05.2016, but, on that date he did not pay any amount as agreed upon. He further submitted that the petitioners admitted that they cheated the defacto complainant and the investigation of the case is pending.

5. Considering the serious nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 05/07/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE SOUTH POLICE STATION, TUTICORIN DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S SR.A.Ramachandhran Advocate SR.No.35264 sm:ARK-PV:SAR I:18.07.2016:2P/4C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9139 of 2016 Date :05/07/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/