Dismissed

P.Vijayakumar v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC7 Jun 2024CRL OP/5414/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the petitioner's plea for anticipatory bail in criminal offences alleging cheating. Finding the petitioner had a suspicious modus operandi and similar pending cases, the court deemed detailed investigation necessary and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail is dismissed; the Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed.

P.Vijayakumar Vs Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶2

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶3

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

¶4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for an alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 420 IPC and 406, 420, 120(B) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.26 of 2023 and Crime No.4 of 2023 respectively, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶5

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Except the fact that petitioner is the brother of 1^st accused, he was not involved in any activities along with his brother in the name of R.K.S.Apparels. He was not connected with the amount remitted by the defacto complainant. He further submits that, in another case, he got bail. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6

3.Learned counsel for the intervenor opposed this petition, stating that,

¶7

Page 1 of 4

¶8

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

¶9

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶10

this modus operandi of this petitioner along with his brother attempting to cheat them, by pretending that they are owning a Company and collecting the documents from people. Further, they gave a false claim that they were partners. Believing that, defacto complainant handed over the title deed worth Rs.2 crores. Now they refuse the borrowal of title deeds. Thus, he seeks dismissal of this petition.

¶11

Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that petitioner has similar cases pending against him. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶12

5.In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, enquiry was conducted and investigation in this case is almost completed. Thus, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶13

6.On seeing the facts of the case, that petitioner is having a modus operandi of collecting documents and cheating people and pretending

¶14

Page 2 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶17

themselves as mill owners and also the fact that petitioner is having similar cases pending against him, this Court is of the view that this case needs detailed investigation and not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

Accordingly, this Criminal Original petitions are dismissed.

07.06.2024

Page 3 of 4

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶24

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

¶25

¶26

Crl.O.P.Nos.5414 and 4009 of 2024

¶27

07.06.2024

¶28

Page 4 of 4

¶29

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

P.Vijayakumar v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Vijayakumar v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subir Ali Alias Subeer Vs State Rep by

Abdul Khader Vs M.Jiyavudeen

Arumigu Karivaradharaja Perumal Temple Vs Dhanalakshmi

N.S.Venkatesh Vs a.R.Abdul Hameed

Benial Mohan Jebamani Vs State Rep by

Thiravaloor Vinod Kumar @ Vinod Kumar Vs State Rep.by