Dismissed

P.Kathiravan v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC11 Dec 2023CRL OP/4992/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Crl.O.P. under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail, the petitioner argued that the bail conditions were inadequate and the accused misled the complainant. The Single Judge noted no violation of bail conditions was proven and dismissed the petition, stating bail cancellation is limited to condition violations.

What did the court decide?

Petition for cancellation of bail stands dismissed.

P.Kathiravan Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶7

P. Kathiravan ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch – II, EDF-I, Avadi, Chennai. (Crime No.3 of 2022)

¶10

2.K.M. Murugan ... Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.,

¶12

prayed to cancel the bail order passed by the learned Principal District and

¶13

Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.4797 of 2022 dated 22.11.2022.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. D. Ashok Kumar For R1 : Mr. R. Vinothraja, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side) For R2 : Mr. V. Jeyachandran

¶15

ORDER

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/6

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶18

This petition has been filed seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 2^nd respondent / 1^st accused in Crime No.2 of 2022 registered by the 1^st respondent under Sections 406, 420 IPC r/w Section 120B IPC.

¶19

The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur,

¶20

had granted bail to the 1^st accused in Crl.M.P.No.4797 of 2022 by an order dated 22.11.2022. While granting bail, the conditions imposed were that the 2^nd respondent should execute bond and thereafter, should appear before the 1^st respondent everyday for a period of 30 days and that he should not abscond.

¶21

The learned counsel for the petitioner / defacto complainant seeks cancellation of that particular order by stating that both the accused had jointly cheated the defacto complainant to a sum of Rs.63,44,000/- and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, while granting bail had completely overlooked that particular fact and had not imposed any condition at all for grant of bail. It is also complained that the 1^st accused had been instrumental in ensuring that the 2^nd accused was not secured by the 1^st respondent. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the defacto

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶24

complainant had filed an application seeking transfer of investigation and an order had been passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court that investigation should be completed within a period of 45 days. It is stated that however, though notices under Section 41(A) of Cr.P.C., had been issued to the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the 2^nd respondent had not properly informed the entire facts of the case to the Investigating Agency.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the 1^st respondent stated that investigation has been practically completed and that final report report would be filed within a period of two or three weeks.

¶26

It is seen from the records that while granting bail, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, had issued notice to the respondent police and the Public Prosecutor had also been appeared and put forth his contentions. It is also seen that on behalf of the petitioner / defacto complainant, an intervening application had also been filed and counsel had also entered appearance.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/6

¶28

3/6

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶30

On consideration of the submissions made, the learned Principal District and Session Judge, had exercised jurisdiction and had granted bail. That order can be cancelled only when there has been any violation of conditions imposed on the 2^nd respondent. This Court cannot sit over as further appellate authority and examine whether the discretion exercised by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, was proper or passed the order based on fairness.

¶31

The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent stated that a sum of Rs.51,00,000/- had been paid to the defacto complainant.

¶32

These are issues which have to be examined only during the course of trial. Let investigation be completed as directed by the learned Single Judge and thereafter, a better option would be for the defacto complainant to let in proper admissible evidence to ensure that the prosecution proves the case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶33

Observing as above, this petition for cancellation of bail stands

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/6

¶35

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

dismissed.

11.12.2023

smv

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.

¶41

2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch – II, EDF-I, Avadi, Chennai.

¶42

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶43

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶44

smv

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/6

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶47

Crl.O.P.No.4992 of 2023

¶48

11.12.2023

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/6

P.Kathiravan v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Kathiravan 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

R.Sokkanathan Vs The District Collector

G. Arunpandian Vs the State Rep by

Rajesh Rathore Vs the State by

D.Seenivasan Vs the Inspector of Police

Sudhakar Vs State Rep by

Sakthivel Vs the State Rep.by