Dismissed

Bala@ Balasubramanian v. State Rep by

Madras HC19 Sept 2023CRL OP/13625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal original petition seeking anticipatory bail. The petitioner accused of showing fake DD for a bank loan and cheating was denied bail due to his overt act and the gravity of the offense punishable under Sections 34 and 420 of the IPC The Bench criticized the lower Magistrate's bail order as lacking diligence.

What did the court decide?

The application for grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed.

Bala@ Balasubramanian Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶3

Reserved On	08.09.2023
Pronounced On	19.09.2023

¶4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶5

It is a case of bogus DD fraud. The petitioner/A2, who

¶6

apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.0002 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶7

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant had a business relationship with A1/Kalidoss for the purchase of land at Guduvanchery worth about Rs.10 Crores, for which A1 has promised to arrange for a loan and for the said loan, he has paid the commission of Rs.33,75,000/- to A1 and thereafter, he had cheated the de-facto complainant.

¶8

The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that A1 was arrested and released on bail by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. Hence, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶9

The learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) would contend that it is a case of showing fake DD for procuring the Page 1 of 4

¶10

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

¶11

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶12

alleged bank loan for the purpose of business transaction. Based upon the complaint, it was investigated by the investigation officer and on the promise of getting Rs.10 Crores, they have shown a fake DD of Rs.60 Crores and another DD for Rs.10 Crores. Believing the same, the de-facto complainant has paid Rs.33,75,000/- and thereafter, he has not arranged for the loan nor paid the amount received. A1 was apprehended and arrested and the car used by A1 was also seized and two DD's in the name of Kalidoss, one for Rs.60 Crores and another for Rs.10 Crores which is found to be bogus.

¶13

This petitioner has specific overt act in taking a portion of the commission amount. After perusing the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, I am not expressing any view except to say that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry shall be more diligent and sincere in future while granting bail for these kind of sensitive issues and shall discharge his judicial duties with all sincerity and seriousness to the complaints made.

¶14

Considering the overt act, nature and the gravity of the

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶18

offence and preliminary stage of the investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

19.09.2023

mpl

Page 3 of 4

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶24

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶25

mpl

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.13625 of 2023

¶27

19.09.2023

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

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

Bala@ Balasubramanian v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bala@ Balasubramanian v. 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

Alexis Samson Vs Inspector of Police

R.Periyasamy Vs the Inspector of Police

Ravikiran Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police

Vishnu Sharma Vs Inspector of Police

M. Pradeep Kumar Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Prakash Vs the State Rep by