Allowed

G.Ligi Thiyagu v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC14 Jun 2021CRL OP/3076/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating case upon her undertaking to deposit Rs. 10 Lakhs pending the outcome, subject to strict reporting and procedural conditions.

What did the court decide?

Relief of anticipatory bail granted upon conditions of depositing Rs. 10 Lakhs, executing a bond, Daily reporting, and other standard conditions of bail.

G.Ligi Thiyagu Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated : 14.06.2021

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.3076 of 2021

¶6

G.Ligi Thiyagu ... Petitioner

¶7

Vs. The State Rep by ...Respondent Inspector of Police, G-7, Chetpet Police Station, Chennai. (Crime No.687 of 2020)

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 687 of 2020 on the file of the respondent.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER

¶10

(The case has been heard through video conference)

¶11

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 408, 464, 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. in Crime No.687 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was working as an accountant in the defacto complainant and taking advantage of her position, she had cheated to the tune of Rs.35, 87, 150/-. Hence, the complaint was registered.

¶13

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 she has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel, on instructions, would further submit that the petitioner, without prejudice to her rights, is ready to deposit the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number and also conceded the same to be disbursed to the defacto complainant. However, the learned counsel submitted that before disbursing the amount to the defacto complainant, an affidavit of undertaking shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

be obtained from the defacto complainant stating that in the event of the petitioner succeeding the case, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- will be returned to her.

¶15

4.Heard the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

¶16

5.Considering the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the credit of the crime number, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶17

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.II, Egmore, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), 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:

¶18

(a) the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the credit of Cr.No.687 of 2020 before the Metropolitan Magistrate No.II, Egmore, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order . On such deposit being made, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.II, Egmore, shall obtain an affidavit of undertaking from the defacto complainant stating that in the event of the petitioner succeeding the case, the amount of Rs.10,00,000/deposited by the petitioner to the credit of Cr.No.687 of 2020 will be returned to the petitioner and after obtaining such affidavit of undertaking from the defacto complainant, shall disburse the said amount to the defacto complainant within a period of two weeks thereafter;

¶19

(b)the petitioner and 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;

¶20

(c)the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders;

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

(f)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the

¶24

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;

¶25

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

¶26

-sd/-

¶27

14/06/2021

¶28

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

¶29

TRUE COPY

¶30

Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104. TO 1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NO.II, EGMORE.

¶31

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

¶32

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶33

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, G-7 CHETPET POLICE STATION, CHENNAI. +1 CC to M/S.D.LAKSHMIPATHY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.6507 CRL OP.3076/2021 Date :14/06/2021 TA-30/06/2021

¶34

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

G.Ligi Thiyagu v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Ligi Thiyagu v. the State Rep by Its

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

S.N.Rajarajan Vs S.Karthikeyan

Shanmuga Sundaram Vs the Inspector of Police

Madhan Vs State Rep.by

D.Vadivel Mugundhan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pratheepraj Vs Inspector of Police

Bharathraj Vs Inspector of Police