Manikandan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 23/09/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN 1.Manikandan 2.Meena (a) Meenakshi 3.Rajeswari 4.Vasanthi 5.Shanthi ... Petitioners/Accused 1 to 5 Vs State of Tamil Needy rep. through The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District, Crime No.1018/2022 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.M.Karthikeyavenkitachalapathy Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Govt. Advocate (crl.side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1018 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC in Crime No.1018 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners received money and a gold chain from the defacto complainant assuring that they will arrange Government Job to the defacto complainant's son. But they neither arranged the job nor repaid the money. Hence, a complaint has been lodged against the petitioners. 1/3

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that there was a money transaction between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. To evade from disclosing the money transaction between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, a false case was given. Hence, the learned counsel prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners and the defacto complainant are neighbours and the petitioners received money from the defacto complainant by giving false assurance that they will arrange Government Job to her son. He further submits that, since the investigation is in initial stage and it requires custodial interrogation, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Considering the nature and gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners also the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage as stated by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this point of time.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 23/09/2022 / TRUE COPY / /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

skn 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.

2/3

TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Woraiyur Police Station, Trichy District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN Date : 23/09/2022 TR/GB/SAR-I(30.09.2022) 3P 3C 3/3