Allowed

A.Jerold v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Dec 2023CRL OP(MD)/19697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner facing charges under Section 420 IPC for cheating. Considering the offence was not heinous and the petitioner had community roots, the court ordered release on personal bond of Rs. 10,000 subject to standard conditions including appearance on summons and non-tampering with evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

A.Jerold Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRL OP(MD)No.19697 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 18.12.2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

CRL OP(MD)No.19697 of 2023

¶7

A.Jerold

¶8

... Petitioner/Accused 1

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Manapparai Police Station, Trichy District. In Cr.No.1412 of 2020

¶11

... Respondent/Complainant

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.A.JOEL PAUL ANTONY, Advocate

¶13

For Respondent : Mr.R.SURESH KUMAR,

¶14

Government Advocate(Crl.side)

¶15

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

¶16

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.1412 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶17

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶18

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the

¶19

offences punishable under Section 420 IPC in Crime No.1412 of 2020 on the file of the

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

1/5

¶22

CRL OP(MD)No.19697 of 2023

¶23

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for getting job for the defacto complainant’s daughter. Thereafter, he failed to get any job and he returned only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and failed to return the balance amount. Hence, the case.

¶24

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that there is no truth in the complaint and there is no money transaction between the parties. The petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.430 of 2020 for recovery of money and in the cross examination, he denied the present complaint given as against him. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail.

¶25

4.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police also agreed that the defacto complainant deposed in the cross examination and he denied the complaint given as against the petitioner.

¶26

5.On perusal of records, it is noticed that the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.430 of 2020 for recovery of money. Before the civil Court, in the cross examination, the defacto complainant denied the complaint given as against the petitioner.

¶27

6.Taking into consideration the principles stated by the Honourable Supreme Court in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia Etc., vs. State of Punjab reported in 1980 AIR 1632 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

2/5

¶29

CRL OP(MD)No.19697 of 2023

¶30

and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2009)4 SCC 437 and Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1994) 4 SCC 260 and taking into consideration the origin of crime, it is seen that the offence alleged as against the petitioner is not a case of heinous crime. Further the petitioner is having permanent residence at Trichy District. Hence the principles stated in Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs. Home Secretary, State Of Bihar reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 is taken into consideration. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned that pre-trial detention is not be encouraged nor is to be encourageable pretrial release on sureties; that if the Court is satisfied after taking into consideration that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond, he can safely be released on his personal bond.

¶31

7.In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and

¶32

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

¶33

3/5

¶34

CRL OP(MD)No.19697 of 2023

¶35

on further condition that :

¶36

[a] the petitioner shall affix his photograph and Left Thumb Impression in the

¶37

surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar Card or Bank Pass Book to ensure his identity.

¶38

[b] the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on summons.

¶39

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶40

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶41

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial

¶42

Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶43

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

¶44

sd/18/12/2023

¶45

/ TRUE COPY /

¶46

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

¶47

/01/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III/ IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶48

4/5