Allowed

Vijay v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Sept 2024CRL OP/21653/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Accused in a share-market investment cheating case involving about Rs.72 lakh sought bail after arrest. The court noted co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail and the commercial nature of the transaction, and granted bail on conditions including daily reporting to police.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on bond of Rs.10,000 with two sureties, with condition to report daily at 10.30 a.m. before respondent police until further orders.

Vijay Vs State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 04.09.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL

¶6

CRL OP.No.21653 of 2024

¶7

Vijay

¶8

... Petitioner / Accused

¶9

¶10

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Chennai.

¶11

(Crime No.76 of 2024)

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.76 of 2024, on the file of the respondent.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Ramesh Babu

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶16

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

¶17

1/6

¶18

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody

¶21

on 30.07.2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.76 of 2024, on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶22

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other accused introduced themselves to the defacto complainant as if they are doing share market business in the name of Angel Trading Company, at Shenoy Nagar, Chennai, and induced the defacto complainant to invest Rs.50,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.22,00,000/through various transactions in their business. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know about the said Company through public and was cheated by them. When the defacto complainant asked them about the same, the accused refused to return the amount and threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, the case.

¶23

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

¶24

petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He

¶25

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

¶26

2/6

¶27

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶28

would further submit that the petitioner has been in judicial custody from 30.07.2024 and due to money dispute, a false complaint has been lodged. He would also submit that A2 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court and A1 also obtained anticipatory by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶29

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with the other accused, in the guise of running a share market business, induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- by way of cash and Rs.22,00,000/- through various transactions, in their business and thereafter, they neither give any profit nor return the amount paid by the defacto complainant and thereby cheated him. He would further submit that co-accused in this case were granted anticipatory bail. However, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶30

Heard both side learned counsel and perused the materials available on record.

¶31

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

¶32

3/6

¶33

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶34

Considering the nature of offences and that co-accused in this

¶35

case were granted anticipatory bail and that there is commercial transaction between the parties and also taking into consideration the number of days of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and all other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

¶36

[a] Accordingly, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and on further conditions that;

¶37

[b] the Petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶38

[c] the Petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶39

[d] the Petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶40

[e] the Petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

¶41

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

¶42

4/6

¶43

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶44

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned

¶45

Judicial Magistrate/Trial 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]; and

¶46

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be

¶47

registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

04.09.2024

ata

1.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

¶52

2.The Inspector of Police, K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Chennai.

¶53

3.Central Prison, Puzhal – II, Chennai.

¶54

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶55

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

¶56

5/6

¶57

CRL O.P. No.21653 of 2024

¶58

P.DHANABAL, J. ata

¶59

CRL.OP.No.21653 of 2024

¶60

04.09.2024

¶61

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

¶62

6/6

Vijay v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dasaradha Ramireddy Sirigiri Vs Union of India through

Karthikeyan Vs State Rep

Krishnakumari Vs The Inspector of Police

Mathivanan Vs the State Rep by Its

Manikandan Vs the State Rep by Its

Masilamani Vs State by