Dismissed

Kalavathi v. the State by

Madras HC1 Oct 2020CRL OP/12630/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner, implicated in a chit fund cheating case involving massive financial loss. The High Court rejected the bail prayer due to the significant amount involved and lack of recovery. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not granted and the petition was dismissed.

Kalavathi Vs the State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTIC E A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.12630 of 2020

¶6

Kalavathi

¶7

... Petitioner/2^nd Accused

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Krishnagiri District. (Crime No.19 of 2019)

¶10

... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.19 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Thirugnanam

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz

¶14

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶15

O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶16

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.19 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶17

2 The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Ponraj is that the petitioner along with her husband conducted chit and cheated him to the tune of Rs.29,750/-. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

3 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the husband of the petitioner was running a chit and that the petitioner has no connection with the business run by her husband. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with her husband and two other accused had conducted chit and cheated the defacto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

complainant and other victims. He would submit that there are totally 25 victims in this case and total amount cheated by the accused is Rs.75,00,000/-. He would further submit that A1 in this case has been arrested and enlarged on bail but so far no recovery has been made. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶21

5 Mr.Sugendaran, learned counsel, represented Mr.C.Mohanraj, the learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner's husband along with two other accused persons had conducted chit and cheated the defacto complainant. He would further submit that apart from the defato complainant there are several other victims and the total amount cheated by them is Rs.75,00,000/- and none of the victim have received any amount so far.

¶22

6 Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances and considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and also considering the fact that the accused had cheated huge amount of Rs.75,00,000/- by conducting chit along with other accused, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶23

-sd/01/10/2020 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶25

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KRISHNAGIRI

¶26

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KRISHNAGIRI [FOR INFORMATION]

¶27

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶28

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT.

¶29

CC to M/S.S.THIRUGNANAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cs 16/10/2020

Kalavathi v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalavathi v. the State 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

M.Thanraj Vs the Inspector of Police

Balaji Vs State Rep. by

C.Mariyappan Vs the State Rep by

Ramakrishnan Vs State Represented by

S.Anbarasan Vs State Rep.by

Saravanan Vs the Inspector of Police