B.Raja v. The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP(MD). No.9249 of 2020 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 16/09/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice V.BHARATHIDASAN CRL OP(MD). No.9249 of 2020 B.RAJA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN VS STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.
CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2020.
... RESPONDENT For Petitioner : Mr.M.Gandhi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. Not known of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as Accused No. Rank Not Known, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 415 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No. Not Known of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is working as a Sales Officer in the defacto complaint's Company and collected the money from various dealers to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six lakhs only) but failed to hand over the same to the defacto complainant's Company and misappropriated the same. Hence the complaint.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the Sales Officer in the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
CRL OP(MD). No.9249 of 2020 complainant's Company and collected money from various purchasers and deposited in the defacto complainant's Company. He has not misappropriated any amount.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, submitted that during investigation the petitioner collected nearly twenty eight purchasers and failed to pay the amount to the defacto complainant's Company and number of dealers appeared before the respondent police and also produced the copy of the statement to the effect that they paid the amount.
6.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials it is seen that the purchasers from the defacto complainant's Company given a statement stating that the amount has been handed over to the petitioner in turn he failed to hand over the defacto complainant's Company, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, at this stage. 7.Accordingly, this criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 16/09/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE THILAGAR THIDAL POLICE STATION, MADURAI, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1. CC to M/S.M.GANDHI Advocate SR.No. 17343
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9249 of 2020 Date :16/09/2020 vsd JM/PN/SAR III/21.09.2020/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2