Allowed

J. Amaravathi v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Mar 2019CRL OP(MD)/4664/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to two petitioners accused of cheating and criminal conspiracy. The court allowed the bail considering the defense counsel's submissions and the petitioners' willingness to deposit Rs. 2 Lakhs as proof of bona fides. The petitioners must execute a bond with two sureties and comply with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on deposit of Rs. 2,00,00/- and execution of a bond by each with two sureties.

J. Amaravathi Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRL OP(MD) No.4664 of 2019

¶7

1.J. AMARAVATHI 2 P. MEENA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED No.2 &4

¶8

STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.8/2019) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT

¶9

For Petitioners : MR.K.NEELAMEGAM, Advocate

¶10

For Respondent : MR.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶11

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

¶12

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶13

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 and 294(b) of IPC in Cr.No.08 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶14

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other induced the defacto complainant to secure job in the Court, thereafter he neither secured job nor returned money to the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. On instructions, he would also submit that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- without prejudice to their defence to the credit in Crime number and thereafter the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said amount may be disbursed to the defacto complainant and prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

¶16

¶17

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the state would submit that A1 was arrested and remanded to judicial custody.

¶18

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioners have come forward to deposit the said a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- without prejudice to their rights and contentions to show his bonafide, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Theni on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶19

(a) the petitioners shall deposit the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the credit in crime number 8 of 2019 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Theni without prejudice to their defence and only on such deposit the learned Magistrate shall accept the sureties and disburse the same to the defacto complainant without filing any formal applications.

¶20

(b) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶21

(c)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation

¶22

(d)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶23

(e)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]; and;

¶25

(G)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶26

/ TRUE COPY /

¶27

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶28

¶29

¶30

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, THENI.

¶31

2.DO THRO'THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THENI DISTRICT.

¶32

3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THENI DISTRICT,

¶33

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶34

+1. CC to MR.K.NEELAMEGAM, Advocate SR.No.5713

¶35

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.4664 of 2019 Date :28/03/2019 AE/VR/SAR-I/01.04.2019/4P/6C

¶36

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

J. Amaravathi v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J. Amaravathi v. the Inspector of Police

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

M.Kavery Ammal Vs the Tahsildar

S.Rengaraj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Reehana Hasmath Vs the Registrar

M/S.Vinayaga Traders, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Chinnadurai, Vs the District Collector

A.Anandha Prakash, Vs the Commissioner of Technical