The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed an application for interim bail filed by accused persons charged with cheating, fraud, and criminal intimidation. The Court held that releasing the petitioners would hamper the ongoing investigation.
Interim bail application was dismissed without granting relief.
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 ) Friday, the Tenth day of March Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr.Justice DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN CRL OP(MD) No.1671 of 2017
1 JOTHI 2 IRULANDI ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED 3 & 5
Vs
THE STATE REP.BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAPTUR POLICE STATION, (CR NO. 9 OF 2017.) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
M.A.MALIK ...PETITIONER/PROPOSED RESPONDENT/DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT FOR INTERVENER
For Petitioner : M/S.E.R.GURU BALACHANDRAN, Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.K.V.RAJARAJAN Govt. Advocate( Crl.Side)
For Intervener : M/S.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN, Advocate
PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Crl.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.3 and 5 in Crime No.9 of 2017 on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC seek bail.
2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners along with other accused conned the defacto complainant promising to give gold jewels at cheap rate and taken Rs.6,50,000/from him. Thereafter, they made him to wait at the garden of Ayyavuthevar who is arrayed as first accused.
3.The defacto complainant realising that he has been conned by the petitioners and others when they did not turn up with gold as promised, has given a complaint on 08.01.2017 alleging offence under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC. The Police has registered the case and investigating the matter. While these two petitioners were arrested, all other accused are still absconding and money not yet recovered.
4.It is also the case of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that A1 who is not yet arrested, has 10 previous cases of similar nature and his modus operandi is that he used to promise innocent people to give gold ingots for cheap price and after getting money from them, he will threaten them with dire consequences. Similarly, in this case also, A1 got money from the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ defacto complainant, but did not give him gold ingots and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.
5.The defacto complainant has filed intervening petition wherein, he has narrated the modus operandi of the petitioners and how they used to cheat and loot persons who fall prey to their scheme.
6.The nature of the complaint and the materials placed by the respondent/Police which they have collected during the course of investigation, indicate that there is a wider ramification in this case and unless and until all the accused are secured, the real crime will not be unravelled. Since there is a prima facie material available to indicate involvement of these petitioners in the said crime and much more to be investigated, this Court is of the opinion that releasing the petitioners at this juncture will hamper the investigation.
Therefore, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/10/03/2017 / TRUE COPY /
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1.THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SAPTUR POLICE STATION. 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S.E.R.GURU BALACHANDRAN Advocate SR.No.13652 +1cc to M/s.M.JEGADEESH PANDIAN, Advocate, in SR No.13868
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1671 of 2017 Date :10/03/2017 AAM-RR/SAR 3/13.03.2017 2P 5c
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the crl. op. for bail can be allowed in a cheating case where investigation is incomplete?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jothi Irulandi & Ors.
The State
JOTHI IRULANDI
THE STATE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
