Allowed

S.K.Mohamed Jaffar v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Oct 2022CRL OP(MD)/7810/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in a cheating case under Section 438 Cr.P.C., imposing conditions of appearance, bond execution, and interrogation attendance due to documentary evidence reliance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; obligation to execute bond of Rs.10,000 each with two sureties, appear for 10-day interrogation, and comply with Section 438 Cr.P.C.

S.K.Mohamed Jaffar Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.7810 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/10/2022 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN CRL OP(MD). No.7810 of 2022

¶4

S.K.Mohamed Jaffar

¶5

K.Abdul Rahman ... Petitioners/Accused Nos-1, 5 Vs

¶6

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing II, Madurai.

¶7

Crime No.03 of 2018.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Ashok Nagar, Chennai-32.

¶9

(R2 is Suo Motu Impleaded as per

¶10

Order of this Hon'ble Court Dated

¶11

27.06.2022 in Crl.OP(MD).7810/2022) ... Respondents/Complainants

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.Mohideen Basha, Advocate for M/s.Haroon Rasheed.D.S., Advocate. For Respondents : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

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

¶14

PRAYER :-

¶15

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶16

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶17

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶18

2.The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 120B of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.3 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶19

3.The question is whether the petitioners are entitled to the grant of anticipatory bail. It is true that the earlier petitions filed by the petitioners suffered dismissal. More than four years have elapsed and even though on several occasions, the matter was

¶20

1/3

¶21

CRL OP(MD). No.7810 of 2022

¶22

adjourned, the respondents are not able to quantify the amount involved.

¶23

4.Today, the Additional Director General of Police, Economic Offences Wing, Chennai himself has filed a status report. Paragraph No.11 of the status report reads as follows:-

¶24

11 (a). It is respectfully submitted that the investigation officer failed to bring on record the actual number of depositors and the total amount of deposited money. Hence, disciplinary action had been initiated against him under rule 3(a) of Tamil Nadu Sub-ordinate Services (D&A) Rules, 1955 on 03.10.2022.

¶25

(b) Hence, it is respectfully submitted that the Superintendent of Police has been directed to follow the investigation closely and ensure that the investigation is completed within three months.

¶26

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would state that the respondents are confident of filing a final report within three months. Since the case against the petitioner rests entirely on documentary evidence, their arrest may not be required.

¶27

6.In view of the above, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance before the learned SPL Court of TNPID Madurai, and on their executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten thousand only)each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioners shall appear before the first respondent at 10.30 a.m., continuously for a period of 10 days from tomorrow itself and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. The petitioners shall comply with the conditions stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C scrupulously.

¶28

7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed.

¶29

/ TRUE COPY /

¶30

12/10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL OP(MD). No.7810 of 2022

¶33

¶34

1 THE JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT FOR TNPID, MADURAI.

¶35

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING II, MADURAI.

¶36

3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING II, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI-32.

¶37

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶38

+1. CC to M/S.HAROON RASHEED.D.S. Advocate SR.No.48649[F] dated 10.10.2022 ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7810 of 2022 Date :10/10/2022

¶39

rmi RS/VR/SAR.(12.10.2022) 3P-6C

¶40

3/3

S.K.Mohamed Jaffar v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.K.Mohamed Jaffar 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

V.Balajinagarajan, Vs S.Selvaraj

K. Raman, Vs Ashok Upreti I.F.S.

T.Sannasi Vs the Director General of Police

Madhivanan.K Vs the Director of Elementary Education

Krishnasamy.N Vs the Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (Housing)

Stephen Sahayapresad.M Vs the Commissioner