Dismissed

Pandiyan v. State by

Madras HC18 Sept 2019CRL OP/24708/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail modification petition, the High Court considered an application to reduce a cash deposit condition imposed by the lower court for non-bailable offences involving defalcation. The court dismissed the petition. Questions arose regarding the involvement of multiple accused, the quantum of money involved, and the lack of documentary evidence from the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; liberty to approach Court below for appropriate remedy.

Pandiyan Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.24708 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 18.09.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

CRL.O.P. No.24708 of 2019

¶7

Pandiyan ... Petitioner/A1 Vs. The State rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, M1, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai, (Crime No.172 of 2019) ... Respondent

¶8

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(1)(b) Cr.P.C. to modify the condition imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Thiruvottiyur in Crl.M.P.No.3074 of 2019 by an order dated 19.08.2019, by modifying that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as cash deposit.

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.S.P.Meenakshi Sundharam For Respondent : Thiru.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

This petition is filed to modify the condition imposed in

¶12

Crl.M.P.No.3074 of 2019 dated 19.08.2019, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chenani, that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh before the concerned Magistrate to the credit of Crime No.172 of 2019.

¶13

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶14

1/4

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.24708 of 2019

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with two others, had borrowed loan a sum of Rs.35 lakh from the defacto complainant/Intervener. Thereafter, the petitioner did not repay the said amount. In this regard, the de-facto complainant/intervener had not filed any video evidence nor the documentary evidence to prove the fact that he handed over the sum of Rs.35 lakh

¶17

to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.07.2019 for the alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC by the respondent police. Further, he would submit that the petitioner was detained after the statutory period of 22 days and therefore, he filed a petition for the grant of statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Thiruvottiyur, granted bail to the petitioner by order dated 19.08.2019. However, while ordering bail to the petitioner, the learned Magistrate, imposed certain conditions as follows :-

¶19

"i) That the petitioner shall execute a Bond for a sum of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties each for the like sum of Rs.1 lakh to the satisfaction of the Court.

¶20

ii) That the petitioner has to deposit a sum of Rs.5 lakh before the court in the above crime number in the court account.

¶21

iii) That the petitioner shall not tamper the witness in the case, failing which the bail automatically stands cancelled."

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

2/4

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.24708 of 2019

¶25

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for

¶26

the respondent police would submit that huge amount of money is involved in this case and the petitioner cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.35 lakh. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to modify the condition imposed by the Court below.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the

¶28

learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police.

¶29

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Court below to seek appropriate remedy.

¶30

18.09.2019

¶31

msm Note:Issue order copy on 19.09.2019.

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

3/4

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.24708 of 2019

¶35

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶36

msm

¶37

¶38

1.Sub-Inspector of Police,

¶39

M1, Madhavaram Police Station,

¶40

Chennai, (Crime No.172 of 2019)

¶41

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

¶42

3.The Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Thiruvottiyur.

¶43

Crl.O.P.No.24708 of 2009

¶44

18.09.2019

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

4/4

Pandiyan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandiyan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

L.Parthasarathy Vs State by

Sathiyakumar Vs the State

U.S. Kavin (Minor) Rep by His Vs the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Chennai

Richard Vs State

Nagalingam Vs State Rep by

S.Navaneetha Krishna Pandian Vs State by