The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court dismissed a criminal original petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by accused persons against allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal intimidation, citing the gravity of the offences.
No anticipatory bail granted; criminal original petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Monday, the Twenty Third day of November Two Thousand Fifteen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13199 of 2015 1 J.RATHINASAMY 2 S.JOHN CHANDRASEKAR 3 J.PUSHPAM, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NOS.1 TO 3 Vs
THE STATE REP BY ITS THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. (IN CRIME NO.468/2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT
R.CHITHRA ... INTERVENE PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT
FOR PETITIONER : M/S.S.SELVAKUMAR ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.ANBARASAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE) FOR INTERVENOR : MR.BABU RAJENDERAN
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C, in Crime No.468 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on giving false promise of getting job as Noon Meal Organizer, the first respondent received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the first petitioner neither got the job nor returned the amount. When the defacto complainant requested for return of money, the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant. Therefore, the complaint has been given and the same has been registered in Crime No.468 of 2015 for the offences under stated above.
3.The case of the petitioners is that the second petitioner is the own brother of the defacto complainant and they have not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution.
4.The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the State submitted that the petitioners have promised that they will https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ arrange for a job to the defacto complainant, as Noon Meal Organizer and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, but they did not arrange for
the job and did not return the amount.
5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. 6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of the offence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/23/11/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai - 625 023. TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUNAGAR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. + 1 CC TO MR. BABU RAJENDERAN, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 67000 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13199 of 2015 Date :23/11/2015 2P/4C TE/GSV-AN/SAR-II : 08/12/2015
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused faced with allegations of cheating, fraud, and criminal intimidation.
How the gravity of the alleged offences impacts the decision on anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rathinasamy, John Chandrasekhar, Pushpam
The State
Chithra
V.M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
