Dismissed

Harini v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC1 Jun 2023CRL OP(MD)/8449/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The accused, owners of a leased property who failed to hand over possession after receiving money, were held to require custodial interrogation. A previous bail application by these accused was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. dismissed because custodial interrogation is required given the accused owned the framed property.

Harini Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.8449 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶3

Date : 01/06/2023

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRL OP(MD). No.8449 of 2023

¶7

Harini

¶8

Ganesha Pandian

¶9

Rajeshwari

¶10

... Petitioners / Accused No.4 to 6

¶11

¶12

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai District. (Crime No.206 of 2023.) ... Respondent / Complainant

¶13

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Ramasamy, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

For Intervenor : Mr.S.Poornachandran, Advocate

¶15

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

¶16

PRAYER :-

¶17

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.206 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

¶18

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶19

The petitioners/A4 to A6, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) of I.P.C., in Crime No.206 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-. Hence, the complaint.

¶21

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

¶22

1/2

¶23

CRL OP(MD). No.8449 of 2023

¶24

petitioners are arraigned as subsequent accused, in which, the first accused had entered into an agreement with the other victims and had received money. Therefore, the petitioners are nothing to do with the crime as alleged by the prosecution.

¶25

4.It is seen from the records that the petitioners along with

¶26

other accused have earlier moved application for anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.6036 of 2023 and the same was dismissed on 30.03.2023.

¶27

5.Admittedly, the petitioners along with other accused persons had owned the house property and they have also advertised in order to lease out the said property. On seeing the advertisement, the victims entered into an agreement for lease and paid a sum of rupees nearly 1.5 crores. The accused persons had received money separately from each of the victims and entered into the agreement for lease. Thereafter, they failed to handover the possession of the property. That apart, the said house property was already attached by the bank. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶28

6.In the result, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶29

sd/01/06/2023

¶30

/ TRUE COPY / /06/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶31

SJI

¶32

¶33

1.The Inspector of Police, Koodal Pudur Police Station, Madurai District.

¶34

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

¶37

CRL OP(MD) No.8449 of 2023 Date :01/06/2023 ED/MMS/SAR- (02/06/2023) 2P 3C

¶38

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

¶39

2/2

Harini v. the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harini 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

N.Anwar Hussain Vs The Commissioner

S.Ramamoorthi Vs T.R.Dhanapal

Arulkumar Vs Deputy Superintendent of Police

M.N. Sathivel Vs M.Sundarapandiyan

Chithra Vs The Inspector of Police

Manimaran Vs The Inspector of Police