Dismissed

Nagarani v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC12 May 2022CRL OP(MD)/7874/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under Section 438 CrPC for offences involving cheating (Section 420), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B IPC) and others, the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court refused bail. The petitioner, a housewife, alleged the charges were primarily against her husband.holding the amount involved and the nature of allegations sufficient.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail dismissed.

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

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.7874 of 2022

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12/05/2022 PRESENT

¶3

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

CRL OP(MD). No.7874 of 2022

¶5

Nagarani ... Petitioner/Accused No.2

¶6

¶7

The State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul DCB Police Station, Dindigul District. Crime No.11 of 2022. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶8

C.Marimuthu ... Petitioner/Defacto Complainant Crl.MP(MD).5779/2022 in Crl.OP(MD).7874/2022

¶9

For Petitioner : M/s.THALAIMUTHARASU.G, Advocate. For Respondent : S.RAVI, Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : AN.RAMANATHAN

¶10

Advocate.

¶11

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

¶12

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶13

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 120(b), 406,420,294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No. 11 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶15

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and her husband contacted the defacto complainant over phone and they promised to secure Government Teacher Job and obtained Rs.9,80,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

¶16

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is A2 and she is the wife of A1. The entire allegation is only against the A1 and not against the petitioner. The petitioner is a house wife and she has to take care of her female child studying in Chennai. The defacto complainant and other

¶17

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

¶18

1/3

¶19

CRL OP(MD). No.7874 of 2022

¶20

persons were continuously threatening the petitioner, in which, the petitioner has also made a complaint. However, the respondent police has not taken any steps on the complaint given by the petitioner. Accordingly, she prayed for granting of Anticipatory Bail.

¶21

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that though the enquiry is in preliminary state, after enquiry it reveals that there are several persons have been cheated by the the petitioner and her husband and vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶22

5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that initially the complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant as if he has given a sum of Rs.9,80,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) to the petitioner and her husband for securing a Government job. After investigation it reveals that there are 24 persons were cheated by the petitioner and her husband and the petitioner's husband cheated Rs.2,70,54,000/- (Rupees Two Crores Seventy Lakhs and Fifty Four Thousand only). However, further investigation reveals after securing a huge amount they have invested the said amount in the name of the petitioner and also purchased huge properties in and around Dindigul. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

6.It appears that the petitioner and her husband said to have cheated the defacto complainant and other innocent persons as if they would secure Government jobs to them.

¶24

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the allegation and amount involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25

8.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

¶26

sd/12/05/2022 / TRUE COPY /

¶27

16/05/2022

¶28

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

¶29

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate / litigant concerned.

¶30

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

¶31

2/3

¶32

CRL OP(MD). No.7874 of 2022

¶33

¶34

1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL DCB POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶35

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

¶36

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.7874 of 2022 Date :12/05/2022 SA/JM/SAR.2/16.05.2022/3P/3C

¶37

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

¶38

3/3

Nagarani v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagarani 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

Aaronkumar Vs The Inspector of Police

Nagaraj. a Vs The Superintendent of Police

Ganesan Vs The Inspector of Police

Esakkimuthu Vs The Inspector of Police

Prabhu Vs The Inspector of Police

Muthumani Vs The Inspector of Police