Dismissed

Ayyappan v. State by

Madras HC12 Aug 2021CRL OP/13902/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Original Petition No.13902 of 2021, the Madras High Court considered a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petition was filed by Ayyappan, accused of cheating and forgery. The Court noted the gravity of the offence and the crucial stage of investigation, declining to grant the relief.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was denied and the petition was dismissed.

Ayyappan Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twelfth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13902 of 2021

¶7

AYYAPPAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE BY [ RESPONDENT ] SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ORLEANPET POLICE STATION, PUDUCHERRY. CR.NO.100 OF 2021.

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S. N.U.PRESSANNA Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : M/S V.BALAMURUGANE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(PUDUCHERRY)

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 34, 420, 468 & 471 IPC in Cr.No.100 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that a false certificate dated 15.06.2020 using the office letter pad with the seal and signature of Reader to Superintendent of Police (Law and Order), Puducherry, was issued to one Kaliyaperumal for missing of the original Sale Deed, registered at the office of the Sub Registrar, Villupuram District. Hence the defacto complainant lodged a police complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He merely drafted the documents as shown by the beneficiaries and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶17

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

¶18

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that during the investigation it was revealed that the accused persons were involved in organized crime and created 180 number of counterfeit documents and hence strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail.

¶19

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of offence committed by the accused persons and further the investigation is in crucial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶20

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

12/08/2021

¶23

This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned

¶24

TRUE COPY

¶25

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

¶26

¶27

1 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ORLEANPET POLICE STATION, PUDUCHERRY.

¶28

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUDUCHERRY

¶29

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

¶30

RVR 24/08/2021

¶31

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

Ayyappan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayyappan v. State 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

Thirumalaisamy Vs State Rep.by

Viknesh Vs State Rep by

Vijay Vs State Rep by

S.M.G.Ramesh Vs K.Vijaya

Sri Ram, M/35 Vs Narmadha

M.Loganathan Vs the Inspector of Police