Dismissed

Ranganathan v. State by

Madras HC2 Nov 2023CRL OP/9228/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail. The judgment held that the investigation is deadlocked due to the petitioners' absence. Subsequent proceedings cannot commence without the petitioners, necessitating the dismissal of the petition and the connected miscellaneous petition. Relieved of the apprehension of arrest, the petitioners are effectively denied bail to res

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail and the connected miscellaneous petition are dismissed, the petitioners cannot be relieved of apprehension without appearing for investigation.

Ranganathan Vs State by — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.9228 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.9228 of 2023

¶3

and Crl.M.P.No.6430 of 2023

¶4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶5

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 IPC in Crime No. 80 of 2023 , seek anticipatory bail.

¶6

The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner is the Managing Director and the second petitioner is the Director of the company named Pranav Foundation Private Limited. Both the petitioners are husband and wife. They borrowed money from the defacto complainant to a sum of Rs.56,50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Six Lakhs and Fifty Thousand Only) to be invested in their company. It is the grievance of the learned counsel for the defacto complainant who had filed an intervening application that he had borrowed money from others and paid to the petitioners on the strength of their earlier friendship. But however the money had not been repaid. This led the defacto complainant to lodge the complaint. Hence, this case.

¶7

Page 1 of 3

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.9228 of 2023

¶10

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel

¶11

for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side).

¶12

It is to be noted that the matter has been pending before this Court from April 2023. Still the respondent have not taken any steps to secure the petitioners. This Court also cannot keep the matter in entirety. The defacto complainant, for good measure had not got the money he paid to the petitioners. The investigation can never start and it can never proceed and it can never end in the absence of the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.

02.11.2023

mkn2/gd

Page 2 of 3

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

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.9228 of 2023

¶18

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

¶19

mkn2/gd

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.9228 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.6430 of 2023

¶21

02.11.2023

¶22

Page 3 of 3

¶23

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

Ranganathan v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranganathan v. State by

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

Kamalammal Vs State Rep.by

Ganesan Vs State Rep.by

Pushparaj Vs State Rep by

Indumathi Vs Inspector of Police

S Ravikumar Vs State Represented by

Srinivasan Vs the State Rep by