BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Tenth day of November Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU CRL OP(MD) No.14417 of 2011 MUNIYASAMY ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED-2 Vs STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COMMERCIAL CRIME INVESTIGATION WING(CCIW), VIRUDHUNAGAR, CR NO. 3/2011 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S.A.K.MANICKAM ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.S.DURAIPANDIAN GOVT. ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER SEC. 438 CR.P.C. ORDER : THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 307 of I.P.C. r/w 3 (i)(v) of SC & ST Act. 1989, the petitioners are before this Court seeking anticipatory bail. 2.According to the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was working as a Computer Operator[Out Sourcing] in the VRDCC Bank situated at Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. A fake account was opened in the name of Kalimuthu by the accused 1 & 2, who are the managers of the said Bank in connivance with the petitioner. In such account, by using a cheque, which is signed by the petitioner as Kalimuthu, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was withdrawn. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that insofar as the petitioners 1 & 3 are concerned, they have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur. He would further submit that similar petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. 4.The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is innocent. He has not committed any offenece. As he is only a Computer operator, he has made entries as directed by the rest of the accused. 5.I have considered the above submissions. There are three grounds to be considered in this matter. [I]Opening up of an account in the name of Kalimuthu, who is a non est person [ii]to bring forth some amount in the said account. [iii]withdrawal of the same https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.Though the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner may be tenable in respect of the first two transactions, regarding the third transaction, a cheque was signed as Kalimuthu by the petitioner and using the said cheque, a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was withdrawn. Hence, there is a strong prima facie case against the petitioner. The trial Court itself has recorded the same in very cogent manner. 7.In such view of the matter, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/11/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COMMERCIAL CRIME INVESTIGATION WING(CCIW), VIRUDHUNAGAR. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.14417 of 2011 Date :10/11/2011 2P/3C RPB : 16.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/