Three criminal petitions filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to accused persons in a cheating case. The court rejected the claim of misrepresentation regarding the charge-sheet filing and dismissed the petitions.
The petitions for cancellation of anticipatory bail were dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.08.2016 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.24782, 24783 & 24784 of 2015
1.Crl.O.P(MD)No.24782 of 2016:-
Narayanan ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant Vs.
1.S.Manuvel Jeyaraj
4.Davidson Jeyakumar ... Respondents/Petitioners/
Accused Nos.4 to 7
5.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District. (Crime No.30 of 2010) ... 5th Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul to the respondents 1 to 4/Accused Nos.4 to 7 in Cr.M.P.No.320 of 2015, dated 23.02.2015 and direct the fifth respondent to arrest the above respondents and commit them to custody.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari For RR 1 to 4 : Mr.K.Mahendran For R – 5 : Mr.P.Kannithevan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
2.Crl.O.P(MD)No.24783 of 2016:-
Narayanan ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant
Vs.
1.Gopi ... 1st Respondent/Petitioner/
Accused No.2
2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Dindigul District. (Crime No.30 of 2010) ... 2nd Respondent/Respondent
2
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul to the first respondent/Accused No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.374 of 2015, dated 16.02.2015 and direct the second respondent to arrest the above respondents and commit him to custody.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari For R – 1 : Mr.V.R.Venkatesan For R – 2 : Mr.P.Kannithevan
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
3.Crl.O.P(MD)No.24784 of 2016:-
Narayanan ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant
Vs.
1.R.Dharmalingam 2.Saraswathi ... Respondents 1 & 2/Petitioners/ Accused Nos.6 & 7
5.The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District. (Crime No.30 of 2010) ... 3rd Respondent/Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439(2) read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul to the respondents 1 & 2/Accused Nos.6 & 7 in Cr.M.P.No.456 of 2015, dated 23.02.2015 and direct the third respondent to arrest the above respondents and commit them to custody.
For Petitioner : Mr.J.M.Hassanul Bazari For RR 1 & 2 : Mr.K.Mahendran
For R – 3 : Mr.P.Kannithevan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner/defacto complainant has filed these petitions seeking for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul to the respondents 1 to 4/Accused Nos.4 to 7 in Cr.M.P.No.320 of 2015, dated 23.02.2015.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.The accused in all the petitions are charged for the offences under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.30 of 2010.
3
3.The accused have filed Cr.M.P.Nos.320, 374 and 456 of 2015 for anticipatory bail and the Principal District and Sessions Court, Dindigul granted anticipatory bail to the accused, considering the fact and also considering the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the investigation is completed and the charge-sheet has been filed. Now, the petitioner has come out with these petitions for cancellation of anticipatory bail.
4.According to the petitioner, on the date of granting anticipatory bail to the accused, charge-sheet was not filed, but on misrepresentation by the Public Prosecutor that charge-sheet has been filed, the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the accused submitted that the learned Judge considering the fact that all the transactions are borne out by revenue records and also considering the contention of the Public Prosecutor that the investigation has been completed and charge-sheet is filed, the learned Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners and there is no misrepresentation of fact.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on instructions given by Mr.Muthu Krishnan, the Sub-Inspector of Police, submitted that charge-sheet was filed on 26.01.2015 and it was taken on file on 18.01.2016, on the date of hearing of Crl.M.P.Nos.320, 374 and 456 of 2015 filed by the accused.
7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that there is no misrepresentation, these petitions are dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(AE)
/True Copy/
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
RL/5C/2P/SKS/RR/23/8/2016 Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.24782, 24783
& 24784 of 2015 08.08.2016
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the anticipatory bail granted by the District and Sessions Court to the accused should be cancelled on the ground of alleged misrepresentation by the Public Prosecutor regarding the filing of
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Narayanan
S.Manuvel Jeyaraj
Charles Stephanraj
Issac Kirubaraj
Davidson Jeyakumar
Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul
V.M. Velumani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
