Dismissed

Sivaguru v. the State Rep by

Madras HC28 Oct 2020CRL OP/16788/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras considered an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. Addressing offences of cheating and intimidation, the court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail and dismissed the Criminal Original Petition.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed, and the petitioner shall not be enlarged on bail.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.10.2020

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.16788 of 2020

Sivaguru

... Petitioner

Vs.

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Villupuram. Crime No.24 of 2020. ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.24 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ashok Kumar For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (This case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

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.24 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶12

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Mahadevan is that the petitioner along with one Saravanan induced the defacto complainant and other victims, on the promise of giving high returns and made the defacto complainant to deposit a sum of Rs.12,58,200/- to the KMG Trading and cheated the defacto complainant and others.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against him and the offences are compoundable in nature. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner.

¶14

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contended that, the petitioner and other accused persons collected money from 4 persons under the guise of giving high returns if they invest in KMG trading and the amount was transferred to the petitioner's bank account and cheated a sum of Rs.12,58,200/- from them. He would also submit that A2 was arrested and still in judicial custody.

¶15

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶16

-sd/28/10/2020 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 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM. 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶17

CC to M/S.K.ASHOK KUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.16788/2020 Date :28/10/2020 cs 05/11/2020

¶18

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

Sivaguru v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sivaguru v. the State Rep 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

Alamelu Vs the State Rep.by

Velayutham Vs the Inspector of Police

Vasanth David Vs the Inspector of Police

Gurumoorthy Vs State Rep by

S.Devendran @ Deva Vs the State Rep.by

K.Thirumurugan Vs the State Rep.by