Allowed

Suruliram v. the State Rep by Inspector of

Madras HC15 Oct 2015CRL OP(MD)/15365/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to Suruliram, the sole accused in a dispute involving alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court imposed conditions requiring daily police appearance, execution of a bond with sureties, and compliance with the Criminal Procedure Code. The petition was dismissed if the petitioner failed to appear before the Magistrat

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is released on bail to appear before the Judicial Magistrate upon arrest or appearance, with a bond of Rs. 10,000 and two sureties, and must report daily at 10 AM to the police station.

Suruliram Vs the State Rep by Inspector of — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

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

¶2

Thursday, the Fifteenth day of October Two Thousand Fifteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶5

CRL OP(MD) No.15365 of 2015

¶6

SURULIRAM ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED

¶7

THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION, THOOTHUKUDI. (CRIME NO.625 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT

¶8

For Petitioner : M/S.V.SASIKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.PRABHA,Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶11

The petitioner, who is arrayed as sole accused apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 294-B, 406, 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.625 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.According to the de-facto complainant that he is the proprietor of Sri Sai Freight Logistics and the accused, for his business purpose, had borrowed Rs.9,50,000/- from him and after repayment of Rs.1,00,000/-, he failed to pay the balance amount and when this was questioned, the accused threatened the de-facto complainant with dire consequences.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is one of the partners in Sri Sai Freight Logistics, as per the partnership deed, dated 10.02.2014, but the de-facto complainant with an ulterior motive has suppressed the above fact and gave this false complaint against the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ It is further submitted that the transaction between the accused and the de-facto complainant is purely civil in nature and this

¶14

complaint is given with a view to settle the same before the criminal Forum. 4.Heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

¶15

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶16

6.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.I, Thoothukudi and on his 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 until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

¶17

7.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate

¶18

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.

¶19

sd/15/10/2015

¶20

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

¶21

¶22

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THOOTHUKUDI

¶23

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT 3.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶24

4.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SOUTH POLICE STATION,THOOTHUKUDI. RL/5 C- 26/10/2015

¶25

ORDER

¶26

¶27

CRL OP(MD) No.15365 of 2015 Date :15/10/2015

¶28

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

Suruliram v. the State Rep by Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suruliram v. the State Rep by Inspector of

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

P.Ashok Kumar Vs the Inspector of Police

A. Abubakkar Vs the Inspector of Police

Raj Vs the Inspector of Police

Ganeshkumar Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Arunachalam Vs State Rep by Inspector of

Suruliram Vs the State Rep by Inspector of