Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17174/2022dismissed

Sasikumar v. The Inspector Of Police

2022-10-26Honourable Mr Justice A.A.Nakkiran2 pages

CRL OP(MD). No.17174 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26/10/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN CRL OP(MD). No.17174 of 2022

1. Sasikumar

2. Karthik ... Petitioners/ (***)Accused No.1 & 2 Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Kuthiraipadai Police Quarters, Madurai.

(*)Crime No.36/2022 ... Respondent/Complainant T.S.Asha ... Petitioner/Intervener/ Defacto Complainant In Crl.MP(MD).11835/2022 in Crl.OP(MD)No.17174/2022 For Petitioner : M/s.Ganesan A C, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.R.Gandhi, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in (*)Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 and A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections (**)420 and 506(i) IPC in (*)Crime No.36 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners had cheated and misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocents and they have been falsely implicated in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.17174 of 2022 this case. He would further submit that earlier, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners before the Thirunagar Police Station on 07.04.2022 and thereafter, enquiry was conducted and the same was closed and recorded in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.6601 of 2022 by this Court, dated 08.04.2022. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners had cheated and misappropriated a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the investigation is not yet completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required in this case. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that the investigation is not yet completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much necessary in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 26/10/2022 (*)(**)(***)Amended as per order of the Court dated 26/10/2022 in Crl.MP(MD).12814/2022 in Crl.OP (MD).17174/2022.

/ TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, KUTHIRAIPADAI POLICE QUARTERS, MADURAI.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17174 of 2022 Date :26/10/2022 SJI SA/SBN/SAR.1/03.11.2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2