Allowed

R.Kalaiselvi v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Dec 2020CRL OP(MD)/13457/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to two accused petitioners facing charges of cheating under the IPC. The court directed them to pay a specified sum to victims as a condition for bail and imposed reporting and non-tampering obligations.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail subject to payment of Rs. 75000 to first victim, Rs. 75000 to second, and Rs. 50000 to third, execution of bond, and reporting daily to police.

R.Kalaiselvi Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13457 of 2020

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 07/12/2020

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.13457 of 2020

¶7

1.R.Kalaiselvi 2.S.Palraj ... Petitioners/Accused No.2 and 3

¶8

Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, C-2,Subramaniapuram Police Station(Crime), Madurai City. Crime No.1486 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶9

For Petitioners : Mr.J.Parekhkumar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Ravi, Advocate

¶10

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶11

PRAYER :-

¶12

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1486 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 420, 406 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.1486 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons received a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from three victims to get job in TANGEDCO. After receiving the same, they fail to get job and refused to return the said amount.

¶16

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3. The first petitioner's husband is the first accused. Even according to the prosecution one https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Anburaj collected the amount from the victims and thereafter, he

¶17

1/3

¶18

CRL OP(MD). No.13457 of 2020

¶19

cheated all the victims. He also died. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was only transferred to the account of the first petitioner's husband namely, Rameshkannan and thereafter, the said amount was also returned back to the account of said Anburaj. Therefore, the petitioners are no way connected with the present complaint as alleged by the prosecution. However, the petitioner are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each to show their bonefide.

¶20

4.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervener submitted that the victims paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the first accused namely, Rameshkannan who is the husband of the first petitioner/A2 to get a job in TANGEDCO. After receipt of the said amount, they did not get job in TANGEDCO for the victims and refused to return back the said amount, which was received by them. He further submitted that A2 and A3 are close relatives of A1 and they are also equally responsible for the offence.

¶21

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that there are totally three accused in which the petitioners arrayed as A2 and A3. They along with A1 collected a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- from three victims to get a job in TANGDECO. Thereafter, they fail to get any job and also refused to return amount to the victims.

¶22

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioners are ready to pay a substantial amount to the victims, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶23

7.Accordingly, the petitioners shall jointly pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) to Sarayana, a sum of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) to Prakash and a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to Dhanam directly and on producing of acknowledgement, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or their appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶24

(a)the petitioners 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;

¶25

(b)the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

¶26

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

¶27

2/3

¶28

CRL OP(MD). No.13457 of 2020

¶29

(c)the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶30

(d)the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶31

(e)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]; and;

¶32

(f)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC. sd/07/12/2020 / TRUE COPY /

¶33

/ /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶34

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶35

¶36

1.THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.IV, MADURAI.

¶37

2.DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-2,SUBRAMANIAPURAM POLICE STATION(CRIME), MADURAI CITY. 4.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+1 CC to M/s.J.PAREKH KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-7947[I] dated 07/12/2020)

¶39

ORDER

¶40

¶41

CRL OP(MD) No.13457 of 2020 IAS Date :07/12/2020 TK/PN/SAR.3/09.12.2020/3P/6C

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

R.Kalaiselvi v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Kalaiselvi v. The Inspector of Police

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

Prasanna Vs State Represented by

Nalini Vs State Rep by

Thangarasu @ Thangaraj Vs State Rep by

Ponkaruppasamy Vs The Inspector of Police

Karupaiah Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

G.Arunkumar Vs The Inspector of Police