Dismissed¶28

Thimothy v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC3 Mar 2025CRL OP/17732/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of anticipatory bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.; cheating case (Cr.No.42 of 2022, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur) treated as civil in nature; alleged loss Rs.58,61,518/-; bail conditions complied with except a few days; anticipatory bail by Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in CMP No.653 of 2024 (06.02.2024) upheld; related writ WP (MD) No.13726 of 2024 (passport renewal) referred; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None - the anticipatory bail already granted to the 2nd respondent/accused was not cancelled. ¶28

Thimothy Vs the Inspector of Police — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 03.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶7

Thimothy ... Petitioner/Defacto complainant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur District. (Cr.No.42 of 2022) … Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Muruganatham ... Respondent/Accused

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to cancel the bail granted in CMP No.653 of 2024 dated 06.02.2024 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Elangovan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.S.Santhosh (for R1) Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶14

Mr.Pradeep Jayaraman (for R2) Ms.Alamelu Saruthri

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/5

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶18

The petitioner seeks cancellation of bail mainly on the ground that the respondent has committed serious offence of cheating and the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, ought not to have granted anticipatory bail and further the 2^nd respondent/accused had not complied with the conditions imposed by the trial Court and he has not cooperated for the investigation.

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner/defacto complainant reiterated the averments in the petition and submitted that if the 2^nd respondent/accused is at large, there is every possibility of tampering the evidence and that the 2^nd respondent/accused, is absconding and has not appeared and cooperated for the investigation. He further drew the attention of this Court to WP (MD) No.13726 of 2024, wherein the 2^nd respondent/accused had sought for a direction to the Regional Passport Officer to process his application for renewal of his passport and this Court had allowed the said petition on 03.07.2024.

¶20

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/accused per contra submitted that the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/5

¶21

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶22

shows that the allegations are civil in nature and that there is a commercial dispute and hence, custodial interrogation is not required and there is no reason to interfere with the said order.

¶23

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the 1^st respondent police submitted that pursuant to the direction, the 2^nd respondent/accused has complied with the conditions for 27 days and thereafter, due to health reasons, he did not appear.

¶24

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶25

Perusal of the impugned order would show that the dispute between the petitioner and the 2^nd respondent/accused is civil in nature and because of the conduct of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner had allegedly suffered a loss of Rs.58,61,518/-. The allegations are borne out by records. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur, cannot be faulted. It is also seen that the 2^nd respondent/accused had complied with the conditions regularly expect for a few days.

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/5

¶27

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶28

Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not made out any ground for cancellation of bail and hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

03.03.2025

¶30

ars

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/5

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.17732 of 2024

¶33

SUNDER MOHAN., J.

¶34

ars