Allowed

P.Kandasamy, Aged 58 Years v. State through

Madras HC27 Jul 2018CRL OP/16014/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of cheating and conspiracy in a job racketing case involving financial loss to a complainant, subject to specific surrender and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail subject to execution of a bond with sureties, surrender within 15 days, daily police reporting, and no tampering with evidence or absconding.

P.Kandasamy, Aged 58 Years Vs State through — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Seventh day of July Two Thousand Eighteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16014 of 2018

¶7

P.KANDASAMY

¶8

¶9

STATE THROUGH [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM.

¶10

CR.NO.10 OF 2018

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.BABU RANGASAMY Advocate

¶12

For Respondent : MR.M.MOHAMED RIYAZ, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2018 registered by the respondent for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 506(i) of IPC.

¶16

2 . The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant one Bharathiraja is that the petitioner is working as a lorry driver in a private concern and during the year 2014, the petitioner introduced Velmurugan (A2) and Arasu (A3) to him and all of them lured the defacto complainant that if he could pay Rs.6,50,000/-, they can secure a job as a Lab Assistant in a Government School. The further allegation is that believing the words, the defacto complainant and his friend one Ranganathan have paid an advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 10.01.2015 to Arasu (A3) and again Rs.2,00,000/- on 13.01.2015 to Velmurugan (A2) and on 15.02.2015, an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was paid to the petitioner herein and that all the accused assured him that he will get the job in a week's time, whereas, the petitioner did not secure the job and when the defacto complainant had asked for return of money, the petitioner along with other accused have threatened him.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a case of money dispute has been converted as a case of job racketing. He would submit that Velmurugan (A2) is the person, who had received the entire amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the defacto complainant and that he has failed to repay the amount to the defacto complainant, other than the introduction given by the petitioner, he has not

¶18

obtained any pecuniary gain in the transaction. He would submit that the said Velmurugan (A2) and the defacto complainant had entered into an agreement on 07.02.2016, wherein, the said Velmurugan(A2) had agreed to repay the entire amount to the defacto complainant and in the letter of undertaking, he has also absolved the liability of the petitioner herein and indemnified him. He would submit that the second accused Velmurugan has been arrested and later enlarged on bail.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner along with other accused joined together, on the promise of getting job, received an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- from the defacto complainant and thereafter, cheated him. He would submit that the arrested accused has been enlarged on bail.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions.

¶21

6 . Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Vazhapadi, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on her 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 the said Magistrate, on further condition that:

¶22

[a] if the petitioner failed to surrender before the said Magistrate within a period of fifteen days, this order shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m until further orders.

¶24

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶25

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶26

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶27

[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

27/07/2018

¶30

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.)

¶33

High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VAAZHAPADI.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM [FOR INFORMATION]

¶37

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM.

¶39

+1CC to M/S.BABU RANGASAMY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.14146

¶40

CRL OP.16014/2018

¶41

Date :27/07/2018 MK:30/07/2018

P.Kandasamy, Aged 58 Years v. State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kandasamy, Aged 58 Years v. State through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palanivel, M/a 45 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

Karunamoorthy, S/O.Devaraj Vs State Rep by

L.Mohan, M/a 40 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Rani Selvaraj, F/Aged 63 Years Vs the State Represented by

P.Velusamy, Aged 40 Years, Vs State Represented by

Venkatesan (50) Years, Vs State Rep. by