CRL OP(MD)/18052/2017 of G.MAHENDRAN, Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, on 28 December 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

G.MAHENDRAN

... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN)

Vs

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, TRICHY DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.1 OF 2017)

2 THILAGAVATHI ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

For Petitioner : Mr.V.CHANDRAPANDI Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Government Advocate (Crl.side)

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections406, 420 and 120(b) of I.P.C., and Section 5 of T.N.P.I.D. Act, inCrime No.1 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police, seeksanticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and hiswife were running a business in the name and style of 'G.M.G. RealEstate' and they offered attractive schemes and thereby, collectedhuge amount from the public. Based on the same, the defactocomplainant and others invested their money in the aforesaidcompany. But, the petitioner and his wife did not repay the amountto the defacto complainant as promised. Hence, the defactocomplainant lodged a complainant against the petitioner and his wifebefore the respondent police.

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committedany offence and he prays for anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner's wife/A2 hasbeen granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9779 of 2017, dated15.11.2017, by this Court.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that theinvestigation is going on. He also submitted that the petitioner isnot arrayed as an accused as on date and he has been issued summonsto appear for the purpose of enquiry.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the fact that the respondent police is entitled to issuesummon any one to appear for the purpose of enquiry and that cannotbe a ground for granting anticipatory bail. Hence, I am notinclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly,the anticipatory bail is dismissed.

sd/-

28/12/2017

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, TRICHY DISTRICT.ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, TRICHY DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S.V.CHANDRAPANDI Advocate SR.No.37104