Dismissed

K.Jayagopi v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC22 Sept 2022CRL OP/22263/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal original petition seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner faced charges of cheating by impersonation and fabricating documents. The court rejected the prayer, citing evidence of involvement and a prior similar case, deeming custodial interrogation necessary.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed without being in jail / arrest proceedings.

K.Jayagopi Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶3

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

¶4

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471, 406, 420 and 506 (i) of IPC and in Crime No.136 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons impersonated as owners of the property, who are in USA and by fabricating false documents, agreed to sell the lands to the de facto complainant and by fixing the value at Rs.3 Crores, has received an amount of Rs.25 Lakhs as an advance and cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

¶6

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been foisted as against the petitioner. He would further submit that, other than being the broker for the transaction, the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and the money was also not received by the petitioner. Page 1 of 4

¶7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶9

Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶10

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other coaccused conspired and by claiming themselves to be the owner of the property, by impersonating and fabrication of documents received a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs from the de facto complainant and thereafter cheated him. He would further submit that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in this case and the investigation is also at the initial stage and seeks for dismissal of the petition.

¶11

The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would

¶12

submit that there are ample evidence to show that the petitioner has received the money on behalf of all the other accused. He would further submit that the petitioner is also involved in two previous cases, out of which one is of similar in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶13

Page 2 of 4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶16

Taking into consideration facts and submissions of this case

¶17

and also the fact that the petitioner has got a previous case of similar in nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

22.09.2022

nst/mpl

Page 3 of 4

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶24

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J. nst/mpl

¶25

Crl.O.P.No.22263 of 2022

¶26

22.09.2022

¶27

Page 4 of 4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

K.Jayagopi v. State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Jayagopi v. State Rep by 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Siddique Vs State Rep by

S.Ari Vignesh Vs State Rep by

Paulvannan Vs State Rep by, Thirupathur

Dr.Sajith Ahamed Vs State Rep by

Siva Suriya Vs the State

Udayakumar Vs State Rep by