Dismissed

Vanitha v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC29 Jun 2021CRL OP(MD)/3589/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An anticipatory bail petition filed by accused persons in a Cheating (Secs. 420, 406 IPC) case involving the pledging of gold jewellery for cash was dismissed. The Court held that since jewels were not redeemed and amounts unpaid, arrest and enquiry are necessary for investigation progress, rendering bail unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; accused not entitled to bail as investigation requires arrest.

Vanitha Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.3589 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Reserved on Pronounced on 25.06.2021 29.06.2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.3589 of 2021

¶7

Vanitha

¶8

Perumal

¶9

Ravi @ Ravichandiran

¶10

... Petitioners/Accused A1 to A3 Vs

¶11

State Rep.by

¶12

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Sivagangai District.

¶13

Crime No.8/2021. ... Respondent

¶14

Seetha ... Petitioner/ Intervener IN CRL MP(MD)No.2183 of 2021 IN CRL OP(MD)No.3589 of 2021

¶15

For Petitioners: Mr.M.Senthil Ayyanar, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam,

¶16

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

For Intervenor : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, Advocate

¶18

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

¶19

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶20

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶21

The petitioners/A.1 to A.3, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 406,424, 420,120B,294(b) and 506(i)I.P.C., in Crime No.8 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶22

The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 and 2 are known to the defacto complainant very closely. The third accused was introduced to the defacto complainant by the accused 1 and 2. The accused conspired to cheat the defacto complainant and represented to the defacto complainant that if she give her jewelry, the jewelry would be pledged in Government/Private sector banks and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the third accused would give Rupees Two Lakhs as interest. The

¶23

1/3

¶24

CRL OP(MD). No.3589 of 2021

¶25

accused 1 and 2 got 50 sovereigns of gold jewels from the defacto complainant and pledged in their name and got Rs.15,00,000/-. Similarly the first accused got six sovereigns of gold jewels from witness No.2, pledged it with Syndicate Bank and got Rupees one Lakh on 20.01.2020. The third accused pledged four gold bangles each weighing two sovereigns and the first accused pledged five sovereigns of chain with Sivasakthi finance. Again four sovereigns of gold jewel was pledged with Sivasakthi finance for Rs.77,000/- in the name of the first accused. The accused also got Rs.6,00,000/from the witness No.3, Rs.6,00,000/- from witness No.4, Rs.5,00,000/- from witness No.5, Rs.1,50,000/- from witness No.6, Rs.4,70,000/- from witness No.7, Rs.5,50,000/- from witness No.8, Rs.7,95,000/- from witness No.9, Rs.3,00,000/- from witness No.10. All these jewels and amounts were secured from the defacto complainant and the witnesses on the promise of paying higher interest. When the defacto complainant demanded to return the money and jewels from the accused on 28.02.2020, the accused promised to pay Rs.25,00,000/-. However, they did not pay. In the meanwhile, they filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.10984 of 2020 making false allegations against the defacto complainant and others. Therefore, this case came to be registered on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant.

¶26

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the intervenor opposes this petition on the ground that the petitioners have conspired together with an intention to cheat the defacto complainant and other witnesses and in pursuance of their conspiracy, they secured the jewels and cash from the defacto complainant and other witnesses. Till now, the jewels and cash were not returned. Unless the petitioners are arrested and enquired, there is no possibility of retrieving the jewels and amount and therefore, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State opposes this petition on the ground that the investigation is not completed. Further, he submitted that the prosecution has collected the materials to show that the petitioners got jewels from the defacto complainant and pledged with Private and Public Sector Banks. There is a prima facie case available to prosecute the petitioners. The petitioners are not co-operating with the investigation. Therefore, the investigation could not be completed. He also seeks dismissal of the petition. He also produced CD file for perusal of this Court.

¶29

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State and perused the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ materials placed on record.

¶30

2/3

¶31

CRL OP(MD). No.3589 of 2021

¶32

As narrated earlier, it is a case of cheating, taking advantage of the friendship of the defacto complainant with the accused. She was made to part with the jewels on the promise of higher return in the form of interest. The jewels had been pledged in the name of the accused. The fact that the jewels had been pledged in the name of the accused is admitted by the petitioner in this petition. Perusal of CD file also shows that the jewels were pledged by the first accused Vanitha with Sivasakthi bankers. There are other materials collected to show the pledging of jewels with City Union Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Syndicate Bank, Canara Bank. As things stand now, neither jewels were redeemed, nor the amount was repaid to the defacto complainant. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioners are not cooperating and therefore, no progress could be made in the investigation.

¶33

Considering the unique way of cheating committed in this case, the fact that neither the jewels were redeemed nor the amount was paid to the defacto complainant and other witnesses, this Court is of the considered view that unless the petitioners are arrested and enquired, there will be no progress in this case. In this view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶34

sd/29/06/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶35

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, 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 copy,shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. TO

¶36

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SIVAGANGAI DISTRICT.

¶37

2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+1CC to M/s.G.PRABHU RAJADURAI, Advocate (SR-4239[I]dated 30/6/2021)

¶39

ORDER IN

¶40

CRL OP(MD) No.3589 of 2021 Date :29/06/2021

¶41

SSL

¶42

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MS/PN/SAR-3/01.07.2021/3P.4C

¶43

3/3

Vanitha v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vanitha 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.Sakthivel @ Sakthi Vs The Inspector of Police

Thirumani Vs The Inspector of Police

K.Seenivasan Vs The Inspector of Police

Sathiya Priya Vs The Inspector of Police

R.Rajesh Vs The Inspector of Police

Alagarsamy Vs The Inspector of Police