Dismissed

Kani v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Dec 2013CRL OP(MD)/20132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy involving misuse of employment promises, argued he was falsely implicated. The Court rejected the plea due to the serious nature of the offence and the modus operandi.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.

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

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eleventh day of December Two Thousand Thirteen PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.20132 of 2013

¶6

..PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6

¶7

KANI

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD DISTRICT. CR. NO. 22/2013. ..RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.M.SEENI SULTHAN Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : Mr.K.V.RAJARAJAN, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

There are totally six accused in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A6 and apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 468 of IPC., r/w. Section 120(b) of I.P.C., in Crime No.22 of 2013, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that A5 had approached A1 to arrange 200 employees for employment in a Catering unit in German and accordingly, a sum of Rs.50,000/- collected from each person with a promise that they will be employed in a catering industries in Germaney. However, neither employment was given nor the amount was given back.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is sought to be implicated only based upon the confession given by the co-accused and he is an NRI from Malaysia and a false case has been foisted against him.

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that all the accused by using Modus operandi collecting more than Rs.63 lakhs and cheated the persons on the promise that they will be given employment in Gernman and neither provided the employment nor returned the amount to the said persons. He further submits that A1 to A3 were arrested and enlarged on bail on 01.05.2013 and A4 was arrested and enlarged on bail on 02.05.2013 and A5 & A6 are absconding and consequently, the investigation could not be completed.

¶18

5.This Court taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case especially, the Modus operandi adopted and considering the serious nature in gravity of the offence, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.

¶19

sd/-

¶20

11/12/2013 / TRUE COPY /

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶22

TO 1 THE ADDL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶23

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD DISTRICT.

¶24

PBK 17/12/2013 2P/3C

¶25

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

Kani v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kani 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

Palanisamy Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs Manimegalai

John Muthiah Vs the Sub - Inspector of Police

Tamilselvan Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Lakshmi Vs the Inspector of Police

A.Umar Vs the Commissioner of Police