Allowed

Arumugasamy and Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police

Madras HC20 Sept 2024CRL OP/4978/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal O.P., Petitioners sought anticipatory bail for alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust. The Court, considering the nature of the dispute and the absence of previous cases, granted bail subject to specific conditions including daily reporting and execution of a bond.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, subject to conditions including daily reporting, no influence on witnesses, and no absconding.

Arumugasamy and Others Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by… — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶2

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶3

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶4

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offences under Section 406 and 420 of I.P.C. in Crime No.5 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

The case of the prosecution is that petitioners and the defacto complainant had entered into business transaction in the year 2008. While so, the petitioners have cheated a sum of Rs. 21,46,446/- from the defacto complainant. When the defacto complainant insisted them to return back the money, the petitioners have threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequence. Hence, the complaint.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are an innocent person and they have not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶7

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

¶8

1/5

¶9

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶10

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing

¶11

¶12

for the respondent police submitted that petitioners have purchased goods from the defacto complainant and had cheated him and and he further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner. However, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶13

Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submits that the transaction between the defacto complainant and the petitioners have taken place in the year 2008 and the petitioners had assured that they would settle the amount, however, they have not settled the amount. Hence, he opposed to grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶14

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioners and also considering the fact that there is a business transaction between the parties and that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and considering other aspects, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

¶15

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

¶16

2/5

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶18

Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail

¶19

in the event of arrest or on his/her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the Judicial Magistrate, Salem on condition that the petitioners shall 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶20

[a] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police on everyday at 10.00 a.m, until further orders.

¶21

[b] the petitioners 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 of the Court or to any police officer.

¶22

[c] the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.

¶23

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

¶24

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

¶25

3/5

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶27

[e] the petitioners shall make himself/herself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.

¶28

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners 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].

¶29

[g] If the petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

¶30

20.09.2024

¶31

nsl

¶32

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

¶33

4/5

¶34

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶35

P.DHANABAL, J.

¶36

nsl

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.4978 of 2023

¶38

20.09.2024

¶39

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

¶40

5/5

Arumugasamy and Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by the Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arumugasamy and Others v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vignesh Vs State Rep by

Praveena Vs State Rep by

Deepan Vs the State Represented by

Ramayee Vs State Rep by

Dani @ Anthony Vs the State Rep by

M.Sangeetha Vs P.Mathesh