Selvaganesh v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/10/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Selvaganesh ... Petitioner/3rd Accused Vs.
The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch(DCB) Trichy District.
In Crime No.15 of 2023 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : S.Alagu Sundar For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.M.Karthikeyan Venkitachalapathy PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SECTION 482 OF BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.15 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police 1/4
for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i) and 120B of IPC, in Crime No.15 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the first and second accused had assured to deliver solar panel product to the de-facto complainant within a specific time, for which, the de-facto complainant had paid a huge amount to them. After receiving the said amount, the first and second accused did not hand over the solar panel product. Hence, the complaint has been made.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner/A3 is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected with the offence. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4The learned Government Advocate(Crl.sdie) appearing for the State would submit that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed before the concerned Court.
5.Considered the nature of the allegation in this case that the petitioner was actively involved in showing the solar panels to the de-facto complainant and only believing they petitioner's words, the de-facto complainant had paid the money and thereafter neither the money was repaid nor the panels were supplied and the defacto complainant was cheated with a huge amount of Rs.9,68,00,000 and in this case, 2/4
strangely, even though the earlier anticipatory bail application was dismissed as early as in the month of September 2023, the respondent police did not apprehend the petitioner and as a matter of fact, on the other accused, A1 and A2 having been released on statutory bail thereafter without even apprehending this petitioner, the charge sheet is filed.
6.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, as the earlier order of this Court is very clear and categorical that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail considering the role played by him, accordingly dismissed the petition. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
The copy of this order shall be placed before the appropriate Superior Authority, so that the investigation can proceed further. sd/- 19/10/2024 / TRUE COPY / / 11 /2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
NS 3/4
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH (DCB), TRICHY DISTRICT,
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.17594 of 2024 Date :19/10/2024 PSP/ GSV /SAR /21.11.2024/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4