Dismissed

Lalitha v. State Rep by

Madras HC10 Nov 2020CRL OP/17825/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a criminal original petition filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner was arrested for executing fake applications under the PM Kisan Scheme. The Court declined bail citing the nature of the offence and the fact that the investigation was at an initial stage.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail under Section 439 CrPC was dismissed.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 10.11.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

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

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.17825 of 2020

Lalitha

..Petitioner

Vs.

The State Represented by Inspector of Police CB-CID, Kanchipuram ...Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.2 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmuga Thayumanavan

¶12

For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side) O R D E R (The case has been heard through video conference)

¶13

The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.09.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420, 34 of IPC read with 43 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.2 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner by producing forged documents availed income support under the Pradan Mandri Samman Nidhi Yojana Scheme which is implemented by the Government of India and cheated several lakhs of rupees.

¶15

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner is only a Data Entry Operator and she entered the data as per the information given by the Farmer and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the being a lady has been suffering incarceration for 57 days from 15.09.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of bail.

¶16

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with one Muthulakshmi who is an Agricultural Officer, had furnished 250 fake applications and received several lakhs of rupees from the Government and thereby, cheated the Government. He would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ submit that the investigation is at the initial stage.

¶17

Taking into account the nature of offence and the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶18

-sd/-
10/11/2020
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 SUPERINTENDENT,
CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL,
CHENNAI
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 INSPECTOR OF POLCIE,
CB-CID KANCHIPURAM
CC to M/S N.SHANMUGA THAYUMANAVAN Advocate on payment of
necessary charges
CRL OP.17825/2020
Date :10/11/2020
RVR 01/12/2020

¶19

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

Lalitha v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalitha v. 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

C.Selvam Vs State Represented by

Arul Prakash Vs State Rep by

K.Jayasingh Vs State Rep.by

Arun @ Arunmurugan Vs State Rep.by

Arun @ Arunmurugan Vs State Rep.by

Arun @ Arunmurugan Vs State Rep. by