M.Pandiyan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/10/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRL OP(MD). No.17765 of 2022 M.Pandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District.

(Crime No.18 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.A.Karthick Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambi Selvan, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 420 and 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that this petitioner/A3 is the father of A1. The first accused is a student of the defacto complainant and he has stated that he is having highly influenced person in the Government Department and with the help of them he will get Government job within 6 months. For which, he demanded Rs.25,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and she had paid https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Rs.22,00,000/-. However, the first accused, without getting the Government job to the defacto complainant, further demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. After knowing the fraudulent act of A1, the defacto complainant went to the petitioner's home and asked the petitioner to repay the said amount. At that time, A1 had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He further submitted that the petitioner was arrayed as an accused on the sole ground that he is the father of A1 and he is having no idea about that the transaction between the accused No.1 with the defacto complainant.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioner is the main accused and he is still absconding and there was no progress in the investigation. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner and also the fact that the investigation is still pending and the petitioner is still absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition stands dismissed.

Sd/- 06/10/2022 / TRUE COPY / /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.II) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

vsd TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.17765 of 2022 Date :06/10/2022 SP/GB/SAR II/14/10/2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis