Allowed

D.Jeyapaul v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Sept 2014CRL OP(MD)/13323/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, an accused in a criminal case involving cheatting and criminal conspiracy, after evaluating his counsel's submissions regarding a prior civil decree and mediation history.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties of like amount, conditioned to appear before police daily for one week and before Magistrate within 15 days.

D.Jeyapaul Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.13323 of 2014

¶3

D.JEYAPAUL ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED RANK NOT KNOWN

¶4

¶5

THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.43 OF 2014 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶6

For Petitioner : M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate

¶7

For Respondent : M/S.K.ANBARASAN, Government 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, who is arrayed as an accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 120(B) of IPC., in Crime No.43 of 2014, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶11

The Branch Manager of Tamil Nadu Merchentile Bank, Thoothukudi, lodged a complaint alleging that the first accused Raja Pandian had obtained a loan by mortgaging his property in S.No.87/5A, Mullakadu Village, Thoothukudi Taluk and without clearing the dues, he entered into an agreement with the second accused to sell the property and thereby, he cheated the Bank.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner entered into an agreement with the first accused Raja Pandian to purchase the property for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,00,000/- and paid Rs.70,000/- towards advance amount. Since he did not come forward to execute the sale deed, the petitioner instituted a Suit in O.S.99 of 2010 before the Sub Court, Thoothukudi and also a decree was passed in favour of the petitioner on 14.03.2011. As per the decree, the petitioner has also remitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the balance amount of Rs.1,25,000/- to the credit of Suit on 31.03.2011.

¶13

The learned counsel further submitted that, when the matter was referred to the Mediation, the petitioner as well as the Manger of the Bank had appeared, but due to non appearance of the first accused, the matter could not be compromised.

¶14

The learned Government Advocate (clr.side) submitted that the petitioner was aware of the mortgage and despite he was also put on notice before he entered into an agreement.

¶15

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions.

¶16

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thoothukudi and on 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 one week and thereafter, as and when required, for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

¶17

The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

¶18

sd/-

¶19

11/09/2014 / TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO

¶21

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,THOOTHUKUDI.

¶22

2 -DO-THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,THOOTHUKUDI.

¶23

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.

¶24

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶25

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶26

+1. CC to M/S.A.THIRUVADI KUMAR Advocate SR.No.51440.

¶27

ORDER IN

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP(MD) No.13323 of 2014 msm 15.09.2014 p2/6c Date :11/09/2014

D.Jeyapaul v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Jeyapaul 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

Raju Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Selvakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

Hussain Vs the Inspector of Police

Alagu Pazhamuthirsolai Vs the Inspector of Police

K.Karuppasami @ Pandian Vs the Inspector of Police

Rajapandi Vs the Inspector of Police