M.Sathishkumar v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Fourth day of April Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) Nos.15776 & 16061 of 2018 M.SATHISHKUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNONW IN CRL OP(MD)NO.15776 of 2018 1 V.M.PREMKUMARAN 2 R.KARPAGARAJAN ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Nos. 1 & 6 IN CRL OP(MD)NO.16061 of 2018 Vs THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUMANGALAM TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DIST.
(CRIME.NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRL OP(MD)NO.15776 of 2018 THE STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUMANGALAM TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DIST.
(CRIME.NO. 397 OF 2018) ... RESPONDENT / DEFACTO COMPLAINANT IN CRL OP(MD)NO.16061 of 2018 For Petitioner : MR.I.SUTHAKARAN Advocate (IN CRL OP(MD)NO.15776 of 2018) For Petitioner : MR.A.HAJAMOHIDEEN Advocate (IN CRL OP(MD)NO.16061 of 2018) For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)(IN BOTH PETITIONS) For Intervenor : Mr.MURALI ,Advocate (IN CRL OP(MD)NO.16061 of 2018) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who were arrayed as accused, apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.397 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is the whole sale dealer and he has purchased chickpeas from Australia and Germany company and thereafter he sold the same to the petitioners herein and others for which they have not paid any amount. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution . All those chickpeas were purchased by A5 and they are not responsible for that. Hence he prayed for anticipatory bail.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that A6 has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that he is ready to pay Rs.23,00,000/- to the defacto complainant, however he has not transferred any amount and other accused have also not paid any amount.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners have not paid any amount. He would also submit that the investigation is pending and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.
6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact they have not paid any amount as per the agreement and the quantity purchased is huge, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Hence the anticipatory bail petition is dismissed. sd/- 24/04/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TIRUMANGALAM TOWN POLICE STATION, TIRUMANGALAM, MADURAI DIST. 2 ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.
+1. CC to Mr.I.SUTHAKARAN Advocate SR.No.7371 +1. CC to Mr.MURALI Advocate SR.No.7333 +1. CC to Mr.A.HAJAMOHIDEEN Advocate SR.No.7161 PS/VR/SAR-2/02.05.2019/2P/6C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.15776 & 16061 of 2018 Date :24/04/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/