Allowed

Muthukumar v. State by

Madras HC3 Nov 2020CRL OP/16621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case involving pledged jewels. The order mandated the deposit of immovable property title deeds and imposed strict conditions including daily reporting for two weeks and daily reporting every Monday thereafter. The court explained that breach of conditions would allow trial courts to take appropriate action.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted anticipatory bail pending deposit of title deeds worth Rs. 15,00,000/- and execution of bond with sureties, subject to conditions of reporting and non-absconding.

Muthukumar Vs State by — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 03.11.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.OP.No.16621 of 2020

¶6

Muthukumar ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs.

¶8

State by the Inspector of Police, Thiruppapuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District. Crime No. 1322/2020. ... Respondent

¶9

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1322 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N. Sudharsan

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.1322 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant viz., Vishwanathan, who is a manager of Attica Gold Company is that on 05.08.2020 the petitioner approached the defacto complainant's Company stating that he has pledged his jewels worth Rs.19,47,000/with ICICI Bank, who were the bankers of their Gold Company and he has also produced the receipt of the payment. As the defacto complainant's Gold company was engaged in granting gold loan, the defacto complainant's bank manager transferred the said amount to the petitioner's Bank account and also sent two of their staffs with the petitioner to receive the jewels after redeeming from the Bank. Whereas, the petitioner after redeeming the jewels from the ICICI Bank failed to handover the same to the defacto complainant's bank and ran away and thereby cheated them. Hence, the complaint.

¶15

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

¶16

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the jewels belongs to the petitioner/A2 and he has pledged in the name of A1 and he has not yet redeemed the jewels. He would further submit that without prejudice to his defence and contentions, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit title deeds of immovable properties worth about Rs.15,00,000/- Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner failed to handover the jewels worth Rs.19,47,000/- and thereby cheated the defacto complainant's Bank. He would further submit that the jewels belongs to the petitioner and does not belong to A2 and they are now in the custody of the petitioner. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Taking into consideration the facts and submissions of the learned Counsel and the petitioner is ready to deposit the Original title deeds of immovable properties not less than Rs.15,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions;

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to deposit Original Title Deeds of immovable properties worth about Rs.15,00,000/- along with valuation certificate issued by appropriate authority either standing in his name or his relatives/friends to the credit of the crime number. On such deposit being made , the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of three weeks from the date on which the copy of this order is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate III, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) 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 learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶20

[a] the petitioner 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

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter every Monday at 10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶22

[c] the petitioner shall deposit Original Title deeds worth Rs.15,00,000/- to the credit of the above crime no.

¶23

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

¶24

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶25

[e] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶26

[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].

¶27

[g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶28

With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.

¶29

-sd/03/11/2020

¶30

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO

¶31

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.III, CUDDALORE, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

¶32

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE CUDDALORE DISTRICT [FOR INFORMATION]

¶33

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶34

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPPAPULIYUR POLICE STATION, CUDDALORE DISTRICT.

¶35

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

¶36

CRL OP.16621/2020

¶37

Date :03/11/2020

¶38

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cs 23/11/2020

Muthukumar v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthukumar v. State by

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

Mayavel Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Bhuvaneswari Vs State Rep.by

Sundar Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sridevi Vs State

A.Shanmugam, Sole Accused Vs the State Rep.by

Jeeva Vs State Rep.by