Gnana Arul Raj, v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eleventh day of September Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD) No.14967 of 2018 GNANA ARUL RAJ, ... PETITIONER / 1st ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYANKKAVILAI POLICE STATION, KALIYAKKAVILAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.164/2018) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT P.MURUGESAN ... PETITIONER/INTERVENER IN CRL MP(MD).NO.6936/18 IN CRL OP(MD).NO.14967/18 For Petitioner : MR.S.BALAJI Advocate For Respondent : MR.V.NEELAKANDAN Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervener : MR.V.SASIKUMAR PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 I.P.C, in Crime No.164 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant purchased a Tata Maxi Cab bearing Registration No.TN-74Y-4749 from the petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,60,000/-(Rupees four lakhs and sixty thousand only) on 23.10.2017. Thereafter, the petitioner did not deliver the vehicle to the de-facto complainant and thereby, the petitioner deceived the de-facto complainant with the help of one broker namely, Perumal, who is implicated as second accused. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the vehicle was mortgaged in which the de-facto complainant received a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakhs only) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and the de-facto complainant alone is liable to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that after receipt of the amount, the petitioner did not hand over the vehicle and that amount has never been paid to the de-facto complainant by the petitioner herein.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is pending.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 11/09/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALIYANKKAVILAI POLICE STATION, KALIYAKKAVILAI, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to MR.S.BALAJI Advocate SR.No.17521 +1. CC to MR.V.SASI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.17367

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.14967 of 2018 Date :11/09/2018 sji AE/PN/SAR2/28.09.2018/2P/5C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/