Allowed

N.Nagarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC4 Nov 2024CRL OP(MD)/13591/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail petition by the first accused in a cheating case over gold jewels worth Rs.5 lakhs, earlier dismissed. Following payment of Rs.3,10,000 to the defacto complainant and recovery of silver from A2, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions including weekly police appearance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on execution of Rs.25,000 bond with two local sureties, subject to conditions including weekly appearance before respondent police.

N.Nagarajan Vs The Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CRL OP(MD). No.13591 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

¶4

Date : 04/11/2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶7

CRL OP(MD). No.13591 of 2024

¶8

N.Nagarajan ... Petitioner/1^st Accused

¶9

¶10

The Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Police Station, Kanyakumari District, Crime No.202/2024. ... Respondent/Defacto Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arun Prakash, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.P,Kottaichamy, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.R.Srinivasan, Advocate

¶11

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS

¶12

PRAYER :-

¶13

For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.202/2024 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

¶14

The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police, in connection with a case in Crime No.202 of 2024, for the offence punishable under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/4

¶16

CRL OP(MD). No.13591 of 2024

¶17

Sections 409 and 420 of IPC, has filed this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

¶18

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A1 is working as a Jewel Appraiser in his brother's Jewellery Shop. On the assurance given by this petitioner, the defacto complainant has parted with some gold jewels for remaking it as a fresh jewels. The accused persons had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.5 Lakhs.

¶19

3.Considering the nature of allegation and on the objections made on behalf of the respondents that the jewels can be recovered from the accused persons only by way of custodial interrogation, this Court has dismissed the earlier application filed by this petitioner on 05.04.2024.

¶20

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has renewed this application and submits that the petitioner, in order to show his bonafide, has paid a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- to the defacto complainant.

¶21

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submits that subsequent to the earlier order of this Court, dated 28.08.2024, the respondent police has arrested A2 in this case and 20 grams of silver articles were recovered from him.

¶22

6.Considering the subsequent development and also the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has settled a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

2/4

¶24

CRL OP(MD). No.13591 of 2024

¶25

defacto complainant, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to this petitioner.

¶26

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition is allowed and 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 Court, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with two local sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Padmanabhapuram, Kanyakumari District and on further conditions that

¶27

i. The petitioner and the sureties shall submit a copy of their Aadhaar Card or any other identity card issued by the Government in proof of their residence address;

¶28

ii. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent police once in a week on every Monday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

¶29

iii. The petitioner shall not misuse the liberty granted to him by indulging in any further offence and shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner shall be available for the trial as well.

¶30

iv. On violation of any of the above conditions by the petitioner, the

¶31

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

¶32

3/4

¶33

CRL OP(MD). No.13591 of 2024

¶34

respondent police shall move an application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

¶35

sd/04/11/2024 / TRUE COPY /

¶36

/11/2024

¶37

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶38

VRN

¶39

¶40

1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, PADMANABHAPURAM, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶41

2 DO THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT AT NAGERCOIL.

¶42

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THUCKALAY POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

¶43

4 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

¶44

+1 CC to M/s.M.R.SREENIVASAN, Advocate ( SR-13609[I] dated 05/11/2024 )

¶45

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.13591 of 2024 Date :04/11/2024

¶46

RS/GSV/SAR-(23.11.2024) 4P 6C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶47

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

¶48

4/4

N.Nagarajan v. The Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Nagarajan 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

R. Manimekalai Vs The Managing Director

T.Jothimani, Vs P. Amudha IAS

K. Chandiran Vs P. Amudha IAS

The Secretary, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Poorna Ananth Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

B.Ramadevi Vs State of Tamilnadu