The Madras High Court refused anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case involving an alleged swindle of Rs. 1.8 crore. The Court held that custodial interrogation was necessary for recovery of money and the investigation was pending.
Application for anticipatory bail 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 )
Wednesday, the Sixteenth day of June Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19126 of 2020
THIYAGAPRAKASAM [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs
STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB – I, CHENNAI. CRIME NO.175/2019
For Petitioner : M/S B.HARI KRISHNAN 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 petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 506(I) r/w 34 of IPC, in Crime No.175 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons had swindled the money from various persons to the tune of Rs.18,00,00,000/- 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 along with other accused persons had swindled the money from various persons to the tune of Rs.18,00,00,000/- and the custodial interrogation is very much required. He further submits that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/-
16/06/2021
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,
CCB-I, CHENNAI.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S B.HARI KRISHNAN Advocate on payment of necessary
charges
CRL OP.19126/2020
Date :16/06/2021
cs 30/06/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner who apprehends arrest in a cheating case involving substantial sums.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THIYAGAPRAKASAM
STATE
M.DHANDAPANI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
