The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner, accused of cheating involving a sum of Rs. 1.77 crore, failed to satisfy the court, which declined to grant bail due to the gravity of the offence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Tuesday, the Twenty Second day of June Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.10754 of 2021
SENTHIL @ SENTHILKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.B, VILUPURAM POLICE STATION, VILUURAM DISTRICT. CRIME NO. 39/2020
For Petitioner : M/S T.BALACHANDRAN Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioners who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.39 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a medical shop in the name and style of Dean Medicals and induced the defacto complainant to invest money in the said Medical shop and thereby collected a sum of Rs.1,77,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter the petitioner neither returned the principal amount nor paid profits earned in the business and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was registered.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that it is a case of cheating. He would further submit that the petitioner had swindled the money from the defacto complainant to the tune of 1,77,00,000/. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
22/06/2021
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, D.C.B, VILUPURAM POLICE STATION, VILUURAM DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S T.BALACHANDRAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges
CRL OP.10754/2021 Date :22/06/2021 JPA 15/07/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. should be granted in a case of cheating involving the collection of Rs. 1,77,00,000/.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SENTHIL @ SENTHILKUMAR
STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
M. DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
