Anticipatory bail petition dismissed before Madras High Court. The petitioner, a jewel appraiser accused of certifying fake jewels as genuine under Sections 420, 409, and 120(B) IPC, sought bail after two previous rejections.
Petition dismissed; no anticipatory bail granted.
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 Ninth day of January Two Thousand Seventeen
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN
CRL OP(MD) No.23938 of 2016
KAVITHA, ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3
Vs
State: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD DISTRICT. CRIME NO.24/2015
... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT
For Petitioner : M/S.V.KANNAN Advocate
For Respondent : Mr.Ramachandran
Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The Petitioner/Accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.24 of 2015, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.Heard the learned counsel on either side.
3.On perusal of the records, it is seen that the Petitioner has already filed applications for anticipatory bail twice and the same stands dismissed and this is the third petition filed by the Petitioner for the same relief.
4.According to the prosecution, the Petitioner is a Jewel Appraiser and on her certificate, fake jewels has been certified as genuine jewels and based on which, loans have been obtained from the bank.
5.According to the Petitioner, she has not given any certificate regarding fake jewels as genuine one and she has been falsely implicated in this case.
6.However, the offence said to have been committed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Petitioner is serious in nature and that by committing fraud, the Petitioner has cheated the bank and looted the money and caused loss
to the bank on account of the certificate issued by her. Further, the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is required to enquire in this matter, this Court finds no merit in this Petition.
7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD DISTRICT. 2 The Additional Public Prosecutor +1. CC to M/S.V.KANNAN Advocate SR.No.1879 vsn SM-RR-ME/2p/4c/19.01.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused fearing arrest for cheating offences.
Whether the seriousness of the offence and requirement of custodial interrogation negates necessity for anticipatory bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kavitha
State : The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramnad District
S.Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
