Allowed

S.Manohar v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC24 Jun 2022CRL OP/13043/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a cheating and forgery case arising from a land dispute, imposing conditions including daily police reporting for two weeks, ensuring identity documentation, and prohibiting tampering with evidence or absconding.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail releasing the petitioner upon execution of a bond with two sureties and compliance with specific reporting and conduct conditions.

S.Manohar Vs the State Rep by Its — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Twenty Fourth day of June Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.13043 of 2022

¶7

S.MANOHAR

¶8

[ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶9

¶10

STATE REP BY ITS, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH II, ALGSC II, TEAM 22, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007. CR.NO.203 OF 2014.

¶11

For Petitioner : M/S.JOHN PETER S Advocate

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-

¶15

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 r/w 471, 420 and 511 of IPC, in Crime No.203 of 2014, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that due to land dispute, the petitioner cheated the defacto complainants by creating forged documents. Hence the complaint.

¶17

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that already the petitioner was granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court on 01.06.2022 and further directed the petitioner to report before the respondent police and co-operate for the enquiry.

¶18

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that as directed by this Court, the petitioner promptly appeared before the respondent police and co-operated for the interrogation.

¶19

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

¶20

Considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner does not require in this case. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶21

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvallur Town, 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶22

[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.

¶23

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

[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].

¶27

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

¶28

-sd/-

¶29

24/06/2022

¶30

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

¶31

TRUE COPY

¶32

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

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVALLUR.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE THIRUVALLUR. [FOR INFORMATION]

¶37

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH II, ALGSC II, TEAM 22, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007.

¶39

CC to M/S.JOHN PETER S Advocate on payment of necessary charges

¶40

CRL OP.13043/2022 Date :24/06/2022

¶41

TA-29/06/2022

¶42

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

S.Manohar v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Manohar 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.Kumar, M/a 48 Yrs, Vs the Inspector of Police

G.K.Babu Vs State by

M.Vijayarajan Vs the State by

Praveenraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

N.Sukumar Vs T.Prakash

G.Shivaraman Vs Kumar Jayant IAS