Allowed

S.Meganathan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC6 Apr 2022CRL OP/6431/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Madras, while hearing an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C., found that the criminal complaints arose from a failed joint venture due to the landowner's demise. The court granted bail subject to standard conditions including surrender within seven days and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest, conditioned on surrendering within seven days, executing a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties, and complying with specified condit

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Wednesday, the Sixth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN

¶6

CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.6431 of 2022

¶7

S.MEGANATHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]

¶8

¶9

THE STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, EDF I, TEAM II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007. (CRIME NO.175/2022)

¶10

For Petitioner : M/S.S.RANJITHKUMAR Advocate

¶11

For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side)

¶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 for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 & 120B of IPC, in Crime No.175 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side).

¶16

Considering the nature of the complaint, this Court is of the opinion that the Joint Venture Agreement entered between the petitioner and the original land owner, has aborted, due to the sudden demise of the original land owner. Subsequently, the Legal heirs of the original land owner has entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant and received money ignoring the earlier Joint Venture of the Predecessor-in- title with the petitioner herein. This has lead to registration of the criminal case.

¶17

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

¶18

Considering the fact that the nature of the transaction started in the year 2012 and negotiation between the parties had went on till 2017, this Court finds that the criminal complaint given in the year 2021 does not requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner herein. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶19

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lakh 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 and on further condition that:

¶20

(a) if the petitioner failed to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶21

(b) the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

¶22

¶23

(d)the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

¶24

(e)the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶25

(f)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

¶26

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]; and;

¶27

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

¶28

(g)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.

¶29

-sd/-

¶30

06/04/2022

¶31

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

¶32

TRUE COPY

¶33

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

¶34

¶35

1 THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR EXCLUSIVE TRIAL OF CCB CASES AND CBCID METRO CASES, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.

¶36

2 THE CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EGMORE, CHENNAI [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, EDF I, TEAM II, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007.

¶37

4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

¶38

+1CC to M/S.S.RANJITHKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.5308

¶39

CSK 13/04/2022

¶40

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

S.Meganathan v. the State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Meganathan v. the State Rep by

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

Munusamy Vs the State Rep by

Dinesh Kumar @ Dinesh Vs the State Rep.by Its

S.Chandru Vs State by the Inspector Ofpolice

Kalaimani Vs State Rep.by

Ramu @ Ramanathan Vs State Rep.by

R.Mohamed Rafeek Vs the Commissioner of Police