Rajasekar vs. The Inspector Of Police
Facts
The petitioners, Rajasekar and Tamilarasi, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a complaint filed by Akashkumar. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, who operate a shop named “GOLD SKY Electrical and Electronic Shop,” purchased electronic CCTV items on GST bills but failed to refund money for returned goods, resulting in an outstanding amount of Rs. 14,00,000/-. The petitioners claimed innocence and alleged false implication. The State opposed the bail, noting that the petitioners had previously approached the Court for anticipatory bail in a related matter (Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5056 of 2020), where the Court had directed them to cooperate with the police inquiry within two weeks. The State contended that the petitioners had not complied with these directions.
Held
The Court considered the submissions of both sides. While the petitioners claimed innocence, the State highlighted their previous non-compliance with court directions to cooperate with the police inquiry. The Court did not grant anticipatory bail outright but instead directed the respondent police to conduct an inquiry. The Court ordered that if a prima facie case is made out against the petitioners, the respondent police should register an FIR or close the petition inquiry within two weeks from the date of receiving a copy of the order. The Criminal Original Petition was consequently closed. The Court did not make a definitive finding on guilt or innocence at this stage, deferring it to the outcome of the police inquiry.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust, and their alleged non-cooperation with a previous court-directed inquiry? The petitioners argued that they had not committed any offense and were falsely implicated. They relied on their innocence. The State argued that the petitioners had previously approached the Court for anticipatory bail and were directed to cooperate with the police inquiry. The State contended that the petitioners failed to comply with these directions and therefore, anticipatory bail should not be granted.
Sections Cited
Section 438, Section 406, Section 420
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Juri iction ) Date : 16/06/2020 PRESENT The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Rajasekar Tamilarasi ... Petitioners/ Central Crime Branch - Unit I, Madurai Crime No.not known of 2020) ... Respondent/Complainant
For Petitioners : M/s. S.Krishnan,Advocate. For Interveners : 1) Mr.J.Sultan Basha, For M/s.Ajmal Associates. 2) Mr.K.R.Laxman, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER : For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.not known of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for the interveners and the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.
The petitioners apprehending arres
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.