Dismissed

T.Praveena v. State, Rep. by

Madras HC9 Nov 2021CRL OP/20704/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court considered two criminal bail petitions filed by accused persons remanded to judicial custody for offences involving cheque fraud and cheating through a forged courier service. The prosecution alleged receipt of money with promise of delivery not honored. The accused claimed false implication. The court refused bail citing the nature of the offence and incomplete investigation, dismissin

What did the court decide?

Criminal Original Petitions seeking bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. dismissed; petitioners remain in custody.

T.Praveena Vs State, Rep. by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Ninth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20704 & 20749 of 2021

¶7

T.PRAVEENA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.No.20704/2021 ]

¶8

SANJAI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN CRL.O.P.No.20749/2021 ]

¶9

¶10

STATE, REP. BY [ RESPONDENTS

¶11

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, IN BOTH PETITIONS ] D-6, ANNA SQUARE POLICE STATION, ANNA SQUARE, CHENNAI. CRIME NO.405 OF 2021

¶12

For Petitioner : M/S.J.SENTHAMILARASU, Advocate [IN CRL.O.P.No.20704/2021]

¶13

M/S. MADHUSUDANAN, Advocate [IN CRL.O.P.No.20749/2021]

¶14

For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) [IN BOTH PETITIONS]

¶15

PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶17

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶18

In Crl.O.P.No.20704 of 2021, the petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.10.2021 for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 471 of IPC, in Crime No.405 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶19

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

¶20

In Crl.O.P.No.20749 of 2021, the petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.10.2021 for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, in Crime No.405 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were running a forged courier company and under the guise of sending the two wheeler of the defacto complainant's son through courier, had received a sum of Rs.9,440/- and promised to deliver the vehicle from Gujarat to Chennai and thereafter, failed to do the same. Hence the complaint.

¶22

3.The learned counsels for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration for more than 20 days from 18.10.2021. Hence, they would pray for grant of bail to the petitioners.

¶23

4.The learned Government Advocate would raise strong objection stating that the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2 respectively and A2 is a load man. The petitioners under the guise of running Courier Service, have received money from the defacto complainant and thereafter cheated her. He would further submit that the police have been receiving complaints from the other victims and that the investigation has not been completed.

¶24

5.Considering the nature of offence and the fact that the police have been receiving complaints from the other victims and that the investigation has not been completed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

¶25

-sd/-

¶26

09/11/2021

¶27

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

¶28

TRUE COPY

¶29

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

¶30

¶31

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D-6, ANNA SQUARE POLICE STATION, ANNA SQUARE, CHENNAI.

¶32

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

¶33

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL WOMEN PRISON, PUZHAL.

¶34

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON-2, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.

¶35

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶36

CC to M/S.J.SENTHAMILARASU Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶37

JPA 23/11/2021

¶38

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

T.Praveena v. State, Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Praveena 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

G.Paramasivam Vs State by

Rajasekar Vs the State Represented by

R.Thamaraiselvi Vs the State Rep by

G.N.Nagaraj Vs the State Rep.by

Baskar Vs State Re by

Santhosh Vs the Sub-Inspector of Police