N.Latha v. Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighth day of January Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI 1 N.LATHA 2 P ANAND ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN Vs INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, THIRUCHRAPPALLI CITY.
(CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2023) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.SIVABALAN, Advocate for Mr.P.KUMANAN, Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KOTTAICHAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:
FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police 1/4
for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC, in Crime No.Not Known of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the third accused is the family friend of the defacto complainant and he introduced the accused Nos.1 and 2 with the defacto complainant, as if the first accused is going to purchase a property to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/-, for which, he needed money. So, the defacto complainant paid Rs.22,50,000/- on various dates to the account of first accused directly as per the assurance given by the second accused, who is mother of the first accused, as if she will return the same after obtaining loan from the Bank. Thereafter, they have not retuned the said amount to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Further, though some allegation is made against the first accused, there is no allegation levelled against the accused Nos.2 and 3. The petitioner and the defacto complainant are involved in a emblem business and so far, no amount was transferred from the account of the first accused to the third accused. The second accused is a mother of first accused and she is working as a Government Teacher and she has not given any surety to the said amount. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/4
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the investigation is at preliminary stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the manner in which, the amount obtained from the defacto complainant and also the amount involved in this case is not returned to the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 08/01/2024 / TRUE COPY / /01/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
INDU TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, THIRUCHRAPPALLI CITY.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
3/4
ORDER
IN Date :08/01/2024 SS/JGB/SAR- /29/01/2024/4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4