CRL OP(MD)/18001/2017 of D.KASIMAYAN, 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 SeventeenPRESENT

The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN

CRL OP(MD) No.18001 of 2017

1 D.KASIMAYAN

2 PERUMAL @ VIJI

3 SUNDARAPANDI ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3

Vs

1 THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NAGAMALAIPUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. IN CRIME NO.942 OF 2017. ... 1[st] RESPONDNET/COMPLAINANT2 CHINNASAMY ... 2[nd] RESPONDENT/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT

For Petitioners : M/S.P.SENGUTTU ARASAN Advocate For Respondent 1 : MR.K.ANBARASAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

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

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of therespondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections506(i) I.P.C. r/w 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of ChargingExorbitant Interest Act, 2003 in Crime No.942 of 2017 on the file ofthe respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainantborrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the first petitioner at therate of 5% interest per month. Subsequently, the defactocomplainant repaid Rs.2,00,000/- to the first petitioner.Thereafter, the first petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- asinterest. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint beforethe respondent police. Based on the complaint, case has beenregistered for the above said offence.

4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the first petitioner gave a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the defactocomplainant at the rate of 2% interest per month and on the samehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/day, the defacto complainant executed a promissory note in favour ofthe first petitioner as surety and handed over the original sale deed to the first petitioner. The petitioners 2 and 3 are none otherthan the son and nephew of the first petitioner. Thereafter,suppressing the original fact, the defacto complainant lodged afalse complaint against the petitioners. He further submitted thatthe petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committedany offence as alleged by the prosecution and prays for anticipatorybail.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted thatinvestigation is still pending.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsoconsidering the serious offence said to have been committed by thepetitioners, which fall under the Indian Penal Code and the TamilNadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003, I amnot inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition 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, NAGAMALAIPUDUKKOTTAI POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.