Allowed

V.Mathavi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Sept 2013CRL OP(MD)/11695/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a charge sheet involving alleged cheque forgery. The court accepted submissions regarding her reliance on a third party and ordered her release upon bail execution and police appearance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon executing a bond with sureties and complying with daily police appearance conditions.

V.Mathavi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Eleventh day of September Two Thousand Thirteen

¶2

PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice C.T.SELVAM

¶3

CRL OP(MD) No.11695 of 2013

¶4

V.MATHAVI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 Vs THE STATE REP.BY

¶5

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT, CRIME NO. 38 OF 2013. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S.D.SENTHIL Advocate

¶7

For Respondent : MRS.S.PRABHA,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶8

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

¶9

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶10

The petitioner/A1, who is arrayed as accused, pray for the grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 420 r/w 120(b) IPC in Crime No.38 of 2013 on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

2.The case of the prosecution is that one Palani, Branch Manager, State Bank of India lodged a complaint against the petitioner and her husband stating that on 31.05.2013 the petitioner attempted to encash Rs.47,00,000/- by way of producing forged cheque through her Trust account namely Jai Sakthi Women Empowerment Trust and the amount was not issued to the petitioner for that the case was registered.

¶12

3 . Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner did not involve in the offence as alleged by the respondent. He further submits that one Ramasamy/A3 in the above crime has approached the petitioner and stated that he will arrange the loan for the Trust and further he received Rs.2,00,000/- as an commission for arranging the loan. After that A3 handed over the cheque to the petitioner in the name of the Trust and the petitioner and her husband believed the words of A3 and moreover the cheque is genuine one and the petitioner tendered the cheque to the Bank for enhancement through SBI, Nilakkottai Branch, in which the petitioner's Trust is having an account. After came to know that the amount was transferred to the Trust account and after the amount was re-transferred to the SBI, Shivan Branch, Bihar for the reason that the above cheque was forged one.

¶13

4.Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submits that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ investigation is going on.

¶14

5. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be granted the relief prayed for.

¶15

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of her arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul, within 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order and on her executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police, daily at 10.00 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶16

sd/11/09/2013

¶17

/ TRUE COPY /

¶18

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶19

¶20

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II,DINDIGUL

¶21

2.-DO- THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE DINDIGUL.

¶22

3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶23

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶24

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶25

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶26

+1. CC to M/S.D.SENTHIL Advocate SR.No.44992 ORDER

¶27

¶28

CRL OP(MD) No.11695 of 2013 Date :11/09/2013 rg.13.09.2013 2p/6c.

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

V.Mathavi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Mathavi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

N.Mohideen Abdul Khadar Vs the Inspector of Police

R. Gobinath Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police

Maniyati @ Chelladurai Vs the Inspector of Police

Rakkumuthu Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Mohammed Saleem Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajanand Vs the Inspector of Police