Dismissed

S.Kala@Kalaiselvi v. the State by

Madras HC17 Sept 2020CRL OP/13460/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two Criminal Original Petitions for anticipatory bail under Section 437 CrPC, petitioners sought protection against arrest for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC regarding an unauthorized Diwali Chit Company. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners had cheated the public. It was not inclined to grant bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail prayed by the petitioners was rejected and their criminal original petitions were dismissed.

S.Kala@Kalaiselvi Vs the State by — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 17.09.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.Nos.13460 and 13473 of 2020

¶6

S.Kala @ Kalaiselvi

¶7

... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13460/2020

¶8

S.Jagan

¶9

...Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.13473/2020

¶10

Vs.

¶11

The State Rep by its The Inspector of Police(Crime), J-10, Chemmancheri P.S. Chennai. Crime No.454 of 2019.

¶12

...Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps

¶13

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petitions are filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.454 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.J. Athiaman

¶15

For Respondent : Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.454 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioners conducted a Diwali Chit Company unauthorizedly and cheated the public to the tune of Rs.14,10,000/(Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand only). Hence, the complaint.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail to the petitioner.

¶21

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners by conducting Diwali Chit company have cheated the poor people to the tune of Rs.14,10,000/- (Rupees Fourteen Lakhs Ten Thousand only).

¶22

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the petitioners have cheated the poor people, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

6.With the above observation, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

¶24

-sd/-

¶25

17/09/2020

¶26

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

¶27

TRUE COPY

¶28

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

¶29

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ALANDUR.

¶30

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CHENGALPATTU. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶31

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶32

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (CRIME) J-10, CHEMMANCHERI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

¶33

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

¶34

CRL OP.13460 & 13473/2020

¶35

Date :17/09/2020

¶36

TA-23/09/2020

¶37

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

S.Kala@Kalaiselvi v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Kala@Kalaiselvi 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

V.Sobhana Vs the Inspector of Police

R.Thambi Vs State Reb by

S.Aswin Vs State Rep by

Sarasu@Saraswathi Vs State Rep.by

Nagaraj Vs State

Saravanan@Saravanakumar Vs State Rep by