Dismissed

Ottakaran v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Oct 2022CRL OP(MD)/13690/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court disposed of a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioner faced charges of cheating, forgery, and criminal breach of trust. The Court refused bail due to the gravity of the nature of the case and the prosecution's claim of immense financial loss.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. refused.

Ottakaran Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 07/10/2022

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

The Hon'ble Mrs.Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.13690 of 2022

¶8

Ottakaran

¶9

... Petitioner/Rank Not Known

¶10

¶11

State rep., by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.05 of 2021)

¶12

... Respondent/Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Balasubramanian, Advocate.

¶14

For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.05 of 2021 on the file of the respondent Police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, in Crime No.05 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner colluding with one Duraipandi, who worked as a Sales Team Leader in ABT Maruthi Cars, Srivilliputhur Branch, sold the vehicles to car brokers instead of producing the same to ABT-Maruthi cars and caused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis a loss of Rs.43,42,400/- to the Company. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, he would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide the conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶23

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioner has caused huge loss to the Company and hence, this petition may be dismissed.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also considering the gravity of nature involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition stands dismissed.

¶25

/ TRUE COPY /

¶26

/10/2022

¶27

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

¶28

vsm/abr

¶29

¶30

1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶31

DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

¶32

2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶33

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶34

SP/SVR/SAR I/11/10/2022/2P/3C

¶35

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

Ottakaran v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ottakaran 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnasamy Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

Mohamed Farook Vs The Inspector of Police

M.Rajendra Pandian Vs The Sub Inspector of Police

A.Thuvarampathy Vs C.Navaneetha Krishnan

Vinayagam Vs The Inspector of Police

Gokulakannan Vs The Inspector of Police