Madras High Court
CRL OP(MD)/18062/2017 of SYED MOHAMED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE on 28 December 2017
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 CRL OP(MD) No.18062 of 2017 SYED MOHAMED ... PETITIONER/ NOT ARRAYED Vs 1 STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKADU
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
SYED MOHAMED
... PETITIONER/ NOT ARRAYED
Vs
1 STATE THROUGH
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT (CRIME NO.462/2017)... 1[st] RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT 2 JOHN PUSHPARAJ... 2[nd] RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : Mr.S.A.GANAPATHYRAMAN 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 Sections294(b), 406, 420, 120(b) and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.462 of 2017on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.The case of the prosecution is that due to some moneytransaction at foreign exchange the petitioner along with otheraccused have cheated a sum of Rs.2 crores.
4.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitionerthat the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committedany offence and prays for anticipatory bail in favour of thepetitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that he has notarrayed as a party and he has nothing to do with the offence cannotbe accepted.
5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) submitted that thepetitioner is arrayed as A-9 and the investigation is going on. Hehttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/also submitted that the petitioner and other accused have defraudeda sum of Rs.2 Crores.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and alsotaking note of the fact that the offence is serious in nature, it isnot a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, theCriminal 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
KALAKKADU POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
+1. CC to M/S.S.A.GANAPATHYRAMAN Advocate SR.No.2.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
IN
CRL OP(MD) No.18062 of 2017
Date :28/12/2017
pmu/rm
SH/CM-VR/SAR-2:03.01.2018:2p/4c