Dismissed

Mohammed Dawood Khan v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC28 Nov 2023CRL OP/23650/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Sadar Bench of the High Court of Tamil Nadu dismissed criminal original petitions seeking anticipatory bail. The court noted that investigation had not commenced and the petitioner was accused of withdrawing money without procuring the promised loans, using multiple names, and was involved in related cases in Pune.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' applications for anticipatory bail were dismissed as the benefits of bail were not considered to be available given the serious nature of the offences and the need for investigation.

Mohammed Dawood Khan Vs Inspector of Police — Corruption | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

¶3

The petitioner is A2 in Crime No.78 of 2023. The petitioner is A7

¶4

in Crime No.17 of 2023. The said FIRs had been registered under Sections

¶5

409, 420, 34 IPC and Sections 406, 420, 120 B IPC respectively.

¶6

2.It is the case of the defacto complainant that all the accused persons had stated that they would be able to procure loan of higher amount and for that, commission should be paid.

¶7

3.It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has been alternatively using his name Mohammed Dawood Khan and Vasudev. It is stated that both the names relate to the same person, namely, the petitioner herein. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-/Rs.3,98,10,000/in the two cases respectively from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the accused person did not return the money, which had been received and had not arranged the loan. This led to lodging of complaint and registration of FIR. Among all the accused, one of the accused had been arrested and detained under Act 14 of 1982. According to the respondent, investigation

¶8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/4

¶9

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023

¶10

has not yet commenced and interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶11

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was yet another case in Pune, where the petitioner was an accused along with one Karthick and stated that there was a condition for grant of bail and the petitioner complied the same and deposited a sum of Rs.1.5/- crore. It is stated that the said Karthick had been involved in many other cases and wherever he was involved in any case, he has also dragged the petitioner herein as one of the co-accused. This aspect is not relevant so far as the facts of the present case is concerned. In this particular case, it is the specific stand of the respondent that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-/Rs.3,98,10,000/- in the two cases respectively.

¶12

5.In view of the facts, investigation will have to be done about the trail of the money and about the nature of the modus operandi and also about the identity of the petitioner who appears to have used two separate names and also the fact that within Chennai, there is yet another case registered against the petitioner herein, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

¶13

2/4

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/4

¶15

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023

¶16

6.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.

¶17

28.11.2023

¶18

sli

¶19

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4

¶21

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023

¶22

sli

¶23

Crl.O.P.Nos.23650 & 23568 of 2023

¶24

28.11.2023

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4

Mohammed Dawood Khan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Dawood Khan v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maya Mohan Vs State Rep by

Praveen Kumar Vs Inspector of Police

M C Kalaimamani Vs the State Rep by Its

Marimuthu Vs State Rep by Its

B. Aravind Vs State Rep.by

Eagambaram Vs the State Rep by