Dismissed

K.Premanand v. Nemichand Bhati

Madras HC26 Nov 2019CRL OP/29108/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Original Petition challenged the anticipatory bail granted to an accused in a criminal complaint regarding non-payment for goods (Koppara). The court held that new evidence not presented to the lower court could not form the basis for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition is dismissed and the petitioner is liberty to raise issues at the trial.

K.Premanand Vs Nemichand Bhati — Madras HC (2019) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.11.2019

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶4

Crl.O.P.No.29108 of 2019

¶5

K.Premanand ... Petitioner/ defacto Complainant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

1.Nemichand Bhati

¶8

Proprietor of Dhanraj Nemichand.

¶9

..1^st Respondent /Accused No.8 2. State rep., by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (DCB) Coimbatore.

¶10

(Crime No.25 of 2018) ...2^nd Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the order passed by the learned Principal District / Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Crl.M.P.No.3291 of 2019 in CR.NO.25/2019 dated 19.10.2019 and cancel the anticipatory bail granted.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Edwin Prabakar For Respondents : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran, Government Advocate.

¶13

This application has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to A8 by order dated 19.10.2019 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.3291 of 2019 in Crime No.25 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

The defacto complainant has filed the present petition. It is the grievance of the learned counsel the petitioner that while seeking anticipatory bail before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, the 8th accused has filed a series of documents, the bills, invoices and also discharge of those invoices and the attention has been drawn to those invoices by the learned counsel for the

¶15

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

¶16

petitioner and it is stated that the issue in the present case was with respect to moving Koppara from Pollachi to Hyderabad and non payment of the value of the said Koppara. It is stated that the present farmers, had sold the Koppara, but have not received the consideration for the same.

¶17

Drawing the attention to the invoices, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the invoices related to Kopparas moved from Govindapuram in Kerala and not from Pollachi.

¶18

Learned counsel for A8, however, pleaded discharge and that amounts have been paid and further stated that with respect to the place of origin, that it is Govindapuram in Kerala, is also where the defacto complainant has a factory.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) says that the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, has passed the order of bail after considering all material papers.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that he would get further information in this case. It is today stated by the learned counsels that the invoices produced by the petitioner/A8 which relates to the Shreenidhi Traders. However, these are not the arguments in the evidence before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for A8 that the Shreenidhi Traders is run by the wife and the daughter of the present petitioner K.Premanand.

¶21

Even in the grounds seeking for cancellation of bail, this particular aspect is not raised. As a matter of fact, the entire grounds does not even mention in the name of Shreenidhi Traders and they have only mentioned the name of Govindapuram in Kerala. In view of this fact since it is clear that on the basis of the materials available before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, anticipatory bail was granted.

¶22

This Court is not inclined to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.3291 of 2019 dated 19.10.2019 by the learned Principal District / Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

¶23

The petitioner is given at liberty to raise all the issues at the time of trial and establish the same in the manner known to law.

¶24

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

¶25

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rri
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
District Crime Branch (DCB)
Coimbatore.
(Crime No.25 of 2018)
2. The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.B.R.Shankaralingam,Advocate SR.No.10018 (29/11/2019)
Crl.O.P.No.29108 of 2019
PPA (CO)
A.SK(27/11/2019)

¶27

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

K.Premanand v. Nemichand Bhati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Premanand v. Nemichand Bhati

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

S.Devi Vs the State Rep. by

Maheshwari Vs State by

The Intelligence Offier, Vs M.Ravindiran

Thiyagarajan Vs the State Rep by

S.Selvakumar Vs State by Station House Officer

Nitesh Jain Mangal Chand Vs the Senior Intelligence Officer