Anticipatory bail sought by a bank manager implicated as A2 after reinvestigation in a case of cheating a bank by pledging spurious jewels for jewel loans. The Madras High Court granted anticipatory bail on conditions including appearance before the Magistrate and reporting for two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 409,
465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, 109 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860
in Crime No.16 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused, by pledging
spurious jewels, had obtained jewel loans to the tune of Rs.2.24 Crores to 85
customers and thereby, cheated the Bank. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
petitioner is the Manager of the Bank. Initially the petitioner had given a complaint, based on which, a case was registered and after investigation, final
report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur on
29.07.2020 and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.17 of 2021. The first
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
final report was filed on 29.07.2020 and subsequent report was on
19.09.2024. Initially, final report was filed against the Appraiser one Jagadeesan. However, the learned Magistrate before taking cognizance of the final report had ordered for reinvestigation and based on the confession of
A1, the petitioner was implicated as A2 in the supplementary charge sheet filed on 19.09.2024 along with five other persons. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that an initial enquiry was conducted by the Bank
and the Bank has initiated civil action against 84 borrowers and the petitioner still continues to work in the Bank. He would further submit that Bank has found that that petitioner has not committed any offence, which is the reason for the petitioner being permitted to work in the Bank. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) while opposing for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner would submit that originally, based
on the complaint of petitioner, a case was registered in Crime No.16 of 2016 in respect of availing loans by pledging spurious jewels. The respondent had earlier filed a final report on 29.07.2020 and the learned Magistrate had ordered for reinvestigation. Based on the statement of A1, 6 others have been added as accused. He would further submit that now investigation has been completed and the supplementary charge sheet has been filed and the case is now pending in C.C.No.17 of 2021 on the file of Judicial Magiatrate, Thiruvarur and the case is now stands posted to 23.11.2024 for the appearance of the accused.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the materials
available on record.
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
registered based on the complaint of the petitioner and after reinvestigation,
the petitioner has been implicated and also taking note of the fact that petitioner is still continuing to work in the complainant Bank, this Court is
inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:
[a] 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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur , on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further
condition that:
4/6
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur on all working days at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter on the date fixed by the learned Magistrate.
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned 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 Petitioners 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];
[ f ] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.
22.11.2024
rsi
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
rsi
Crl.O.P.No.29267 of 2024
22.11.2024
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner implicated as A2 after reinvestigation in the spurious jewel loan case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.K.Shaji vs. State of KeralaApplied¶6
(2005)AIR SCW 5560 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner/A2
Respondent Police
A.D.Jagadish Chandira
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
