Maniraj@Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Seventeenth day of December Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.20437 of 2018 MANIRAJ @ MANIKANDAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMICS OFFENCE WING NO.II, TRICHY DISTRICT, TRICHY.

CRIME NO.1 OF 2018 ... RESPONDENT / RESPONDENT For Petitioner : Mr.N.RANJITH, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.CHANDRASEKAR, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- [Orders Reserved on 04.12.2018] The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 of IPC., r/w. Section 5 of TANPID Act, in Crime No.1 of 2018, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, who is running a garment business, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,52,56,500/-, from the defacto complainant and other 10 persons, but he refused to repay the same, as promised.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner has involved several cases and he has cheated more than Rs.1 Crore. Therefore, the learned counsel strongly opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner, who is running a garment

business, borrowed a sum of Rs.1,52,56,500/-, from the defacto complainant, but he refused to repay the same, as promised. Hence, the case has been registered against the petitioner, on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant. The investigation is in initial stage and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this petition.

6. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) that the investigation is in initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

sd/- 17/12/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMICS OFFENCE WING NO.II, TRICHY DISTRICT, TRICHY.

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

+1. CC to Mr.N.RANJITH Advocate SR.No.23438

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20437 of 2018 Date :17/12/2018 MS/PN-AC/SAR-1/18.12.2018/2P.4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/