Allowed

T.Gunasekaran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Mar 2021CRL OP(MD)/1257/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to a petitioner accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and imposed strict conditions including daily police reporting and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail subject to conditions: execution of bond with sureties, daily police report for two weeks, no tampering with evidence or witnesses, and no absconding.

T.Gunasekaran Vs The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/03/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD)No.1257 of 2021

¶2

T.Gunasekaran ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State Represented by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. Cr.No. 09 of 2018. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.D.Thirunavukkarasu Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.Srinivasan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶3

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

¶4

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.09 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶6

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 506(i) IPC in Crime No.09 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶7

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a rice mill and he had introduced other accused to the defacto complainant and they have entered into a business transaction and the defacto complainant supplied rice to other accused. However, the other accused did not pay the agreed amount. Hence, the complaint.

¶8

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he only introduced the accused persons to the defacto complainant and he did not know about the transaction between the defacto complainant and other accused persons. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶9

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police submitted that the investigation is pending.

¶10

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that custodial interrogation is not necessary

¶11

in this case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶12

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or his appearance, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar, 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 to the Police Officer, who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶13

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

¶14

(b)the petitioner shall appear before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

(e)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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;

¶18

(f)if the accused/petitioner thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶19

sd/-

¶20

19.03.2021 / TRUE COPY /

¶21

/ /2021

¶22

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶23

GNS

¶24

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct

¶25

copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶26

¶27

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.2, Virudhunagar.

¶28

2.-Do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur. 3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.1257 of 2021 Date : 19/03/2021

¶29

VB VR SAR 3(24.03.2021) 3P 5C

¶30

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

T.Gunasekaran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.Gunasekaran v. The Inspector of Police

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

Rajeshkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Chellaiah Vs The Inspector of Police

A.Imran Khan Vs The Inspector of Police

Ganga Rani Vs The Inspector of Police

Kanagu Vs The Inspector of Police

Babu Vs The Inspector of Police