G.Maruthi Karthikeyan v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.22922 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 06/01/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA CRL OP(MD). No.22922 of 2022 G.Maruthi Karthikeyan ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.450 of 2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.V.M.Jegadheesha Pandian For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr No.450 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC in Crime No.450 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as employee in the windmill company in his locality. The petitioner was introduced by one of the company employee and the petitioner hired the defacto complainant's Tractor namely Sonalika engine No.3100PLUIUK1128163518 model RX-35-2022 for a sum of Rs.30,000/- as monthly rent on 10.08.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has not given the rent to the defacto complainant and has not returned the Tractor to him. When the defacto complainant asked about his vehicle, the petitioner did not say anything about it. Therefore, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police. Hence, the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.22922 of 2022

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no such occurrence had been taken place as alleged in the First Information Report. He would submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner due to previous enmity and money dispute. He prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner not only cheated the defacto complainant by not paying the hired charges but he has also not returned the Tractor and the Tractor is yet to be recovered.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and the learned counsel for the intervenor.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 06/01/2023 / TRUE COPY / /01/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

CM TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.22922 of 2022 Date : 06/01/2023 TR/BUC/SAR-II(20.01.2023) 2P 3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2