Dismissed

T.Vinoth v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Oct 2017CRL OP(MD)/10402/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two separate petitions, the Madurai Bench denied anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to petitioners accused of crime involving misappropriation as a manager of a petrol bunk and charges of cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy based on admitted transactions. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petitions were dismissed; anticipatory bail was denied; connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.

T.Vinoth Vs the Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

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

¶2

Tuesday, the Third day of October Two Thousand Seventeen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

CRL OP(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017

¶6

T.VINOTH ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED Rank Not Known in CRL OP(MD)No.10402/17

¶7

1 M.JAYAPRADHA

¶8

2 Dr.T.ARAVINDH

¶9

3 Dr.DELPHIN SUPRIYA

¶10

4 V.THANGARAJ

¶11

5 M.THILAGAVATHI

¶12

6 T.VENKATESH

¶13

... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN CRL OP(MD)No.11798/17

¶14

¶15

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT,

¶16

... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶17

CRIME NO.NOT KNOWN OF 2017 in CRL OP(MD)No.10402/17 CRIME NO.20/2017 IN CRL OP(MD)No.11798/17

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.B.SANTHANAM RAJESHKUMAR, Advocate

¶19

in both the petitions

¶20

For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) in both the petitions

¶21

For Intervenor : Mr.S.RAMESH, Advocate for

¶22

Mr.S.SARAVANAKUMAR, Advocate in both the petitions

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶25

The petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 406, 427 and 403 IPC., in Crime No. not known of 2017 and 120(b), 468, 471, 408, 477(A), 420 and 506(ii) IPC., in Crime No.20 of 2017, respectively seek anticipatory bail.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10402 of 2017, while he was a manager in the de-facto complainant's petrol bunk, has misappropriated nearly https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.2,44,72,735/- and the same is admitted by him vide promissory document dated 03.02.2016, wherein he promised to return the amount

¶27

and also he admitted that the said amounts were transferred to his family members (petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11798 of 2017) and also in order to prove that transactions the bank details are marked before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD)No.10402 of 2017 alone responsible for the said transaction and other family members have nothing to do with the transaction. He further submitted that the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD)No.11798 of 2017 are innocent persons and they have falsely implicated in this case.

¶29

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent, on instructions, would submit that the petitioner in Crl.O.P(MD).No.10402 of 2017 admitted his guilt and execute a unregistered promissory note in favour of the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that the statement of accounts obtained from the bank indicates that the amounts were transferred to his family members.

¶30

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in both petitions. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶31

sd/-

¶32

03/10/2017 / TRUE COPY /

¶33

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

¶34

Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

¶36

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI DISTRICT,

¶37

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶38

+2. CC to Mr.V.MAHARAJAN Advocate SR.Nos.32041, 32042 +1 CC TO Mr.V.RAGHAVACHARI, Advocate, Sr.No.32087 JAM/10.10.17/PM-PN/SAR 2 / 2p-6c

¶39

ORDER

¶40

¶41

CRL OP(MD)Nos.10402 & 11798 of 2017 Date :03/10/2017

¶42

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

T.Vinoth v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Vinoth 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

G.Pugazhendhi Vs 1.THE Joint Registrar of

P.N.Paneerselvam Vs the State of Tamilnadu, Rep.

Dr.Ambedkar Hut Vs the Spl Commissioner of

Amirtharaj Vs the Inspector of Police

Haja Mydeen, Vs the Inspector of Police

Mohammed Farook Vs the Inspector of Police