Dismissed

A.Ismail v. the State Represented by

Madras HC25 Aug 2020CRL OP/12415/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner filed a criminal original petition seeking anticipatory bail for apprehended arrest in connection with cheating a bank of over Rs. 6 crore by mortgaging spurious jewels. The court rejected the plea due to the huge amount involved and the gravity of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petition dismissed; Anticipatory Bail not granted.

A.Ismail Vs the State Represented by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 25.08.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12415 of 2020

A.Ismail

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Erode, Erode District. (Crime No. 82 of 2020) ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No.82 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, Inspector of Police, South Police Station, Erode, Erode District.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/s. Chennai Law Firm For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶12

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hand of the respondent for the offence punishable under Section 120(b), 406 & 420 IPC in Crime No.82 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

The case of the prosecution as per de facto complainant is that he is the Branch manager of Tamilnadu Industrial CoOperative Bank Ltd., (TAICO Bank), Erode Branch and the petitioner was working as jewel appraiser from the year 2005 to 2008 and from 2010 to 2019 on contract basis. On the proceedings issued by the Managing Director, audit was conducted by special team between 07.02.2020 and 10.02.2020 and it was found that 464 bags out of 2338 jewel bags contained spurious jewellery. The jewels pertain to 82 customers and during enquiry it was found that one M.Selvaraj and Ismail had entered into criminal conspiracy with 82 customers and by furnishing fabricated documents and details, mortgaged spurious jewels and taken loans from the bank and cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.6,19,29,200/-. Based on the complaint, the case was registered in Cr. No. 82 of 2020.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was working as jewel appraiser from the year 2005 on contract basis. It is alleged in the prosecution that the petitioner had colluded with one Selvaraj and other customers and cheated the bank by mortgaging spurious jewels. He would submit that at the time of appraisal original jewels were given and based on that the petitioner has issued report. Whereas later the original jewels have been exchanged and spurious jewels have been kept in the locker by the person having access to the locker and the petitioner has been made a scapegoat. He further submitted that the petitioner not being an employee of the bank, has no permission to enter into the locker room and the pledged jewels are subject to random checking every three months and yearly inspection by NBARD and after inspection they have not found any anomaly in the bank. He further submitted that the manager is the person responsible for the jewels in locker and possibility that the manager could have removed the original jewels and keeping faking jewels in the locker. He would submit that the petitioner will appear before the respondent for enquiry.

¶16

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently oppose the contentions stating that the petitioner have colluded with one Selvaraj and 82 customers and pledged spurious jewels by fabricating the documents and cheated the bank to the tune of Rs. Rs.6,19,29,200/-. He would submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required since he is the main accused who is instrumental in the spurious jewels being pledged as original jewels. He would submit that public money is involved. He would further submit that three brokers have been arrested and they have confessed that the petitioner and A1 Selvaraj are appraisers of the bank at that time and they have permitted to mortgage spurious jewels and thereby, the petitioner along with other accused caused loss of Rs. Rs.6,19,29,200/- to the bank.

¶17

Taking into consideration the facts of the case and submissions made by the counsel and the fact that the money involved is huge, this Court is not inclined to grant Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶18

-sd/25/08/2020

¶19

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

¶20

TRUE COPY

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

¶23

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT NO.III, ERODE.

¶24

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶25

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
SOUTH POLICE STATION,
ERODE, ERODE DISTRICT.
CC to M/S. CHENNAI LAW FIRM Advocate on payment of
necessary charges
CRL OP.12415/2020
Date :25/08/2020
MK:15/09/2020

¶26

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

A.Ismail v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Ismail v. the State Represented by

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

Suresh Vs State Rep.by

S.Senguttuvan Vs State Rep by

B.v.Nirmal Vs the State Rep by

D.Wilson Vs State of Tamil Nadu

D.Hemakumar Vs State Rep.by

J.Sathish Vs the State Rep by Its