Allowed

Sangeetha v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jul 2021CRL OP(MD)/9895/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought bail in accused capacity for cheating offences. Court noted co-accused released on bail. Granted bail with bond conditions including surety identity verification, daily reporting, and prohibition from absconding or tampering with evidence. Allowed fresh FIR if absconding.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with bond of Rs.10,000 payable to Judicial Magistrate, secured with two sureties, subject to specific conditions including daily reporting and non-interference.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 23/07/2021

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.9895 of 2021

¶8

Sangeetha ... Petitioner/Accused No.5

¶9

¶10

The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station, Trichy. (Crime No. 12/2021). ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

For Petitioner : Ms.Devaki.A, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

¶13

PRAYER :-

¶14

For Bail in Crime No.12/2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶15

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶16

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.

¶17

2.The petitioner is the 5^th accused in this case. She was arrested and remanded to Judicial Custody on 23.06.2021 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 120(b) and 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.12 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police. She seeks bail.

¶18

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant has preferred a complaint against the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

¶19

¶20

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the co-accused, A2, A6 and A7 were released on bail.

¶21

5.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of this case that the the co-accused, A2, A6 and A7 were released on bail, I am inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail with certain conditions.

¶22

6.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy and on further conditions that:

¶23

[a] 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.

¶24

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.00 am., until further orders.

¶25

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during

¶26

investigation or trial.

¶27

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶28

[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].

¶29

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶30

sd/-

¶31

23/07/2021

¶32

/ TRUE COPY / / /2021

¶33

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

¶34

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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶35

¶36

¶37

THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.I, TRICHY.

¶38

DO-THROUGH : THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, TRICHY DISTRICT.

¶39

THE OFFICER-INCHARGE, SPECIAL PRISON FOR WOMAN, TRICHY.

¶40

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB POLICE STATION, TRICHY.

¶41

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

¶42

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.9895 of 2021 Date :23/07/2021

¶43

¶44

USK/VR/SAR-IV : 23/07/2021 : 3P/6C

¶45

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

Sangeetha v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeetha 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

R. Soundrapandiyan, Vs State Rep. by the Principal

C.Arun @ Arunachalam Vs the Chairman

Harishkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Sakthi @ Sakthi Kumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Venkatraman Vs The Inspector of Police

Nelliyan Vs The Inspector of Police