Allowed

Mani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Nov 2013CRL OP(MD)/13210/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench granted anticipatory bail to petitioners accused of cheating (IPC Section 420) under Section 438 Cr.P.C., dismissing an objection that mediation failed as it was inclined to grant bail given their family status and innocence claims.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners enlarged on bail in event of arrest within 15 days, subject to bond and daily police appearance conditions.

Mani Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶2

Thursday, the Seventh day of November Two Thousand Thirteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

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

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.13210 of 2013

¶6

1 MANI 2 SUGANTHI ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 1 and 2 Vs

¶7

THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KALLALKUDI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.S.PUGALENDHI Advocate

¶9

For Respondent : Mrs.S.Prabha Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶10

For Intervenor : M/S.M.R.SREENIVASAN Advocate

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioners who arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for alleged offences punishable under Section 420,IPC in Crime No.Not known of 2013, on the file of the respondent police and hence, they come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the defacto complainant for securing a job for her and when the petitioners failed to do so, the defacto complainant demanded repayment. The petitioners did not pay the same and hence on filing a petition for direction the respondent police registered a case in the above said crime number.

¶15

3.Learned counsel for the petitioners filed an additional typed set of papers in support of their contentions and submits that the petitioners are hailing from a decent family and they are innocent and they are not guilty of any offence and the petitioners herein were falsely implicated in this case and hence prays for the relief of anticipatory bail.

¶16

The learned counsel for the intervenor strongly objected for grant of anticipatory bail by informing that though the matter stood referred to mediation, efforts thereat failed and though the defacto complainant has sought for payment of the amount less the expenses incurred by the petitioners, no amount has been paid by the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ till date.

¶17

5.Heard the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) on the above submissions.

¶18

6.On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the rival submissions made by both sides and the fact that the mediation efforts failed and typed set of papers would inform of other transactions between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶19

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail in the event of their arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Lalgudi, subject to the following conditions:-

¶20

(i) The petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned; and

¶21

(ii)The first petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.30 A.M. For a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required and the second petitioner shall appear before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.

sd/-

07/11/2013

/ TRUE COPY /

Sub-Assistant Registrar TO

¶26

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, LALGUDI.

¶27

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY.

¶28

3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶29

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

¶30

KALLALKUDI POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶31

+1. CC to M/S.S.PUGALENDHI Advocate SR.No.54476

TS/13.11.2013/2P-7C

ORDER

CRL OP(MD) No.13210 of 2013 Date :07/11/2013

¶36

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

Mani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani 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

S.Yasar Arafath Vs the Inspector of Police

Jai Sankar Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Lilly Sarojini Vs the Inspector of Police

Vincent Vs the Inspector of Police

Shanmugavel Vs the Inspector of Police

C.Chakaravarthi Vs the Inspector of Police