Dismissed

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Madras HC6 Oct 2021CRL OP/18344/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner arrested for cheating and forgery. Observing that the circumstances remained unchanged since the dismissal of a prior petition on merits, the High Court rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail in Criminal Original Petition No.18344 of 2021 denied; petition dismissed due to lack of change of circumstances.

Saravanan 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.18344 of 2021

¶7

SARAVANAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIYATHAM TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.59 OF 2020)

¶10

[ RESPONDENT ]

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S. T.SARAVANAN Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner who was arrested by the respondent police for an offence under Sections 420 of I.P.C in Crime No.59 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

It is the case of the prosecution that the De-facto Complainant used to stay along with the petitioner in his lodge and the petitioner introduced one Karthick to the De-facto Complainant. When the De-facto Complainant came into contact with said karthick, he induced him saying that he will give 1 kg of gold for Rs.25 lakhs. Believing his words, the De-facto Complainant arranged the money and handed over to one kumar who was sent by said karthick. At that time, two other persons had come there and attempted to kidnap the said kumar and escaped from the seen of occurrence with said kumar by dropping the gold coins. Later the De-facto Complainant came to know that the gold coins were fake ones. Hence the complaint.

¶17

It is seen from records that this is the second anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner. The previous order, dismissing the Criminal Original petition in Crl.O.P.No.14816 of 2020 was passed by this Court on 16.10.2020.

¶18

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

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that there is no change in circumstances after the previous order was passed on merits. Hence, the learned Government Advocate vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

In view of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate, no change of circumstances arises for considering the second bail petition . Hence, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

¶21

-sd/-

¶22

06/10/2021

¶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 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GUDIYATHAM TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

¶28

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶29

CC to M/S. T.SARAVANAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges

CRL OP.18344/2021

Date :06/10/2021

INBA-20/10/2021

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

Saravanan v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan 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

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