Allowed

Kanimozhi @ Sudha v. State Rep by

Madras HC18 May 2022CRL OP/11524/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges of cheating and criminal intimidation. The order imposes strict conditions, including daily police appearance for two weeks, execution of a bond, and prohibitions on tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon appearance before Judicial Magistrate within 15 days, conditioned upon executing a bond with sureties and adhering to specified vigilance and non-absconding conditions

Kanimozhi @ Sudha Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Eighteenth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.11524 of 2022

¶7

KANIMOZHI @ SUDHA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT (CRIME NO.840/2021)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.P.PARAMASIVA DOSS Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.A.DAMODARAN, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 & 506(2) of IPC in Crime No.840 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to the petitioner in the year 2016 and the said lease period was expired in the year 2020 and a fresh lease agreement was entered between them in the year 2020. Due to the fresh lease, an extra amount of Rs.50,000 was paid to the petitioner. When the defacto complainant demanded the return of lease amount, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Thereby, he cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, this complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the subject properties was already sold out to the third party. Further, the said property was mortgaged with the petitioner while borrowing the loan and not yet redeemed the said property. Therefore, the

¶17

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

¶18

purchaser colluded with the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that

¶20

already the said property has been taken over by the bank in the SARFAESI proceedings. The defacto complainant is not in possession of the said property.

¶21

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶22

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees ten thousand only) with two sureties, one among the surety shall be a blood relative of the accused, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶23

[a] the petitioner 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.

¶24

[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.

¶25

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

¶26

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶27

[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].

¶28

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

¶29

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

¶30

-sd/-

¶31

18/05/2022

¶32

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

¶33

TRUE COPY

¶34

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

¶35

¶36

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II COIMBATORE

¶37

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COIMBATORE [FOR INFORMATION]

¶38

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶39

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATTOR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT

¶40

+1 CC to M/S.P.PARAMASIVA DOSS Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No. 7402

CRL OP.11524/2022

Date :18/05/2022

SP(20/05/2022)

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

Kanimozhi @ Sudha v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanimozhi @ Sudha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Athangarayan Vs The Inspector of Police

P.Anbalagan Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

N.Vanchimuthu Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Ayalraj Vs State Rep by

A.Dinesh Babu Vs State Rep.by

S.Masthan Vs State Rep by