Allowed

P.M.Shanmgam v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Feb 2014CRL OP(MD)/1520/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of cheating and forgery in a banker's cheating case and sought bail apprehending arrest. The court granted anticipatory bail subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 10,000 each with two sureties for daily appearance before police for four weeks.

P.M.Shanmgam Vs the Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Twentieth day of February Two Thousand Fourteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶3

CRL OP(MD) No.1520 of 2014

¶4

1 P.M.SHANMGAM (A-11) 2 M.NACHIAPPAN (A-14) 3 A.ARUMUGAM (A-15) 4 M.GUNASEKARAN(A-18) 5 P.PADIVASAL (A-21)

¶5

6 S.KARUPPANAN (A-22)

¶6

7 T.KALI (A-23) 8 M.PERUMAL (A-26) 9 N.MANICKAM (A-27) ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED

¶7

Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADUARI.(CR.NO.6 OF 2014) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.P.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANDASAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶11

There are totally 28 accused. These petitioners, who are arrayed as A-11 to A-27, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 409 and 420 I.P.C, said to have been taken place on 21.01.2014, registered in Cr.No.6 of 2014, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.The case of the prosecution is that totally there are 27 accused persons and the first accused is the erstwhile Bank Manager of Thiruvathavur Branch, Madurai District and other accused persons are sugarcane farmers. As per the averments made by the defacto complainant, the first accused being Manager of Thiruvathavur Branch was transferred on 21.10.2013 to Chokkikulam Branch and one Ravikumar was appointed as a New Manager in Thiruvathavur Branch. As per the oral orders, the first accused was allowed to do the work of Inspection Report Reply for certain periods i.e 22.10.2013 to 01.11.2013 and it is further alleged that during the abovesaid period, the first accused has committed a fraud in sanctioning a sum of Rs.46,00,000/- as loan to the sugar cane farmers by not following the actual procedure. The petitioners are the cane farmers.

¶13

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The first accused who is the prime accused has https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ been arrested and released on bail by the trial court.

¶14

4.The learned Government (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that the first accused had obtained forged documents and misappropriated huge amount, while sanctioning loan amount to the farmers. The allegation against the petitioners is that they have assisted the first accused in the said commission of crime.

¶15

5.This Court, taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused similarly placed were enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.02.2014 in Crl.O.P.(md). No.2066 of 2014, is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to the following conditions:

¶16

6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Madurai and on each 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 petitioners shall appear before the respondent police daily at 11.00 a.m for a period of 4 weeks, thereafter as and when required. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C., scrupulously.

¶17

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

¶18

sd/20/02/2014

¶19

/ TRUE COPY /

¶20

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

¶21

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I,MADURAI.

¶22

2.DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI.

¶23

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

¶24

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,MADUARI.

¶25

+1. CC to M/S.P.SARAVANAKUMAR Advocate SR.No.10889

¶26

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1520 of 2014 Date :20/02/2014 rg.24.02.2014 2p.6c.

¶27

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

P.M.Shanmgam v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.M.Shanmgam 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.Xavier Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Rajendran Vs the Inspector of Police

Balaji Vs the Inspector of Police

Sulian @ Mayandi Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

P.T.M. Ramasamy Vs the Inspector of Police