Dismissed

Vishnu Sharma v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC19 Sept 2023CRL OP/7837/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail filed by parties charged with cheating and forgery involving a bank loan. The bail was denied because the petitioners failed to comply with a prior conditional order dated 16.08.2023 directing them to deposit Rs. 3 crore.

What did the court decide?

Prevent the granting of anticipatory bail and dismiss the Criminal Original Petition No. 7837 of 2023.

Vishnu Sharma Vs Inspector of Police — Banking and Recovery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶3

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

¶4

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 406 & 420 of IPC, in Crime No. 39 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are the family members, carrying on business under the name and style of M/S.Kamadhenu Jewellery at Avadi. The 2^nd petitioner, who is the proprietor of the said Jewellery, had availed credit facility from City Union Bank Ltd., Arumbakkam Branch, Chennai, for which the other petitioners stood as guarantors. All these persons have offered their immovable properties as security, in terms of the MOD dated 04.12.2017. The said credit facility was availed by concealing the ongoing dispute with one Thayarammal, before the Principal District Munsif Court, Poonamallee, in O.S.No.425 of 2012 and that the Bank

¶6

Page 1 of 4

¶7

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

¶8

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶9

was aware of this only after initiating SARFAESI proceedings; that the petitioners had sold most of the stock in the showroom and not routed through Open Loan Cash Credit Account and thereby with a dishonest intention cheated the Bank and caused monetary loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.2,43,18,000/-. Hence, the case.

¶10

This Court, by an order dated 16.08.2023, directed the

¶11

petitioners to deposit a sum of Rs.3 crore to the loan account, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as per the undertaking affidavit filed by the petitioners. Further, the matter was directed to be listed on 18.09.2023 under the caption “for reporting compliance”. Accordingly, when the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the petitioners appeared before this Court through video conferencing and stated that the conditional order passed by this Court on 16.08.2023 has not been complied with by the petitioners.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the fact that the conditional order passed by this Court

¶13

Page 2 of 4

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶16

dated 16.08.2023 has not been complied with by the petitioners, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

19.09.2023

ata

Page 3 of 4

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

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶22

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

¶23

ata

¶24

Crl.O.P.No.7837 of 2023

¶25

19.09.2023

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

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

Vishnu Sharma v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Sharma 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

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

Bala@ Balasubramanian Vs State Rep by

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

Prakash Vs the State Rep by