The petitioner sought anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for alleged offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy involving large sums of money. The court noted multiple complaints and significant financial loss involved. It refused to grant bail and dismissed the petition.
The criminal original petition for anticipatory bail is dismissed.
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 )
Thursday, the Nineteenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14802 of 2021
R.SATHEESH KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [ RESPONDENT ] DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT. CR.NO.21 OF 2020.
For Petitioner : M/S. M.UDAIYA BHANU Advocate
For Respondent : MR. A.GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC in Cr.No.21 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is alleged to have induced the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.5,40,000/- for getting job in the Collector Office.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner to show his bonafide is ready to deposit 50% of the alleged amount.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that subsequent to this complaint, nine other victims have filed complaints and their statements were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted that the total amount cheated is to the tune of Rs.98 Lakhs and further submitted that earlier, the petitioner had filed petition seeking anticipatory bail and the said petition was dismissed by this Court with cost.
5.Considering the fact that these types of activities have been increased in the recent past and the huge amount involved, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
19/08/2021
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, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1 CC to M/S. M.UDAIYA BHANU Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO. 8845
CRL OP.14802/2021
Date :19/08/2021
INBA 03/09/2021
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner who apprehended arrest for alleged cheating.
Whether the magnitude of the fraud and number of victims warrants refusal of bail.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released without grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
R.SATHEESH KUMAR
INSPECTOR OF POLICE
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
