Allowed

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRL OP/16089/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners falsely accused of cheating in a financial dispute that was amicably settled between parties. Officers were ordered to release petitioners on surrender with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted, order to be cancelled on failure to surrender within 15 days. Bond fixed at Rs.10,000 each with two sureties.

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.16089 of 2021

¶7

1 SINGRAVELAN @ SINGARAVADIVELAN [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ]

¶8

2 K.VIGNESH @ VIGNESHKUMAR

¶9

3 B.GOPI

¶10

¶11

STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R-5 VIRUGAMPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT. CRIME NO.790 OF 2021.

¶12

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶13

For Petitioners : M/S.A.M.RAVINDRANATH JEYAPAL Advocate

¶14

For Respondent : MR. C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶15

For Intervener : M/S.INFANT DINESH, Advocate

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420 of I.P.C in Cr.No.790 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶19

2.The case of the prosecution is that the De-facto Complainant is an actor by profession came in contact with the petitioners 1 & 3 as co-financiers entered into a financial agreement along with other accused person to the tune of Rs.3 crores in the production company. Thereafter the petitioners also invested several amounts on various occasions for the business purpose. The petitioner/A1 also opened a bank account in the name of the De-facto Complainant and operated the entire transaction without the knowledge and consent of the De-

¶20

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

¶21

facto Complaint which resulted in loss of Rs.2 crores to the De-facto Complainant. When the same was brought to the knowledge of the Defacto Complainant he lodged a complaint before the law enforcing agency against the petitioners.

¶22

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Further he submitted that during pendency of this petition, the matter was amicably settle between the parties. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶23

The learned counsel for the intervenor also fairly conceded and confirmed the settlement in between them.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is pending in this case

¶25

Considering the fact that the matter was amicably settled between the parties, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶26

7.Accordingly, the petitioners are granted anticipatory bail and they are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate-23, Chennai District 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 the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶27

(a)if the petitioners failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶28

(b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶29

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

(f)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;

¶34

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶35

-sd/-

¶36

06/10/2021

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

1 THE 23RD METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

¶41

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶42

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶43

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, R-5 VIRUGAMPAKKAM POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

¶44

+1 CC to M/S.A.M.RAVINDRANATH JEYAPAL Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.11284

¶45

Date :06/10/2021 RW 26/10/2021

¶46

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

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singravelan @ Singaravadivelan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khaja Mydeen Vs the Intelligence Officer

K.Chandran Vs State Rep by

Madhesh Vs Inspector of Police

Pyarelal Jain Vs State by

K.S.Krishnamoorthy Vs the State Rep. by

N.Mohan @ Madhaiyan Vs Aishwary Pathi