Nirmala v. the Inspector of Police

Madras HC23 Jan 2025CRL OP/19053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail cancellation upheld by Madras High Court; bail granted on sworn-statement undertaking to settle amount to defacto complainant within five months was cancelled for breach of undertaking; Crl.O.P. under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. dismissed; FIR Crime No.826 of 2022, Sections 406 and 420 IPC, Rajamangalam Police Station, Chennai; XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore; charge sheet filed; petitioner not yet secured, no apprehension of arrest; liberty to pursue remedies; Justice P. Velmurugan; parties: Nirmala v. Inspector of Police, Rajamangalam Police Station and T.Jayanthi.

What did the court decide?

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner. ¶32-33

Nirmala Vs the Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶38-39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. seeking to set aside the order dated 22.12.2023 of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 in Crime No.826 of 2022 cancelling the petitioner's bail should be allowed.

¶12

Court's answer

This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.

¶32-33

Ratio / Principle

Though the cancellation order was passed on 22.12.2023 itself, the petitioner has not been secured so far; therefore, there is no apprehension of arrest.

¶34-36

Key takeaways

Since the respondent police has filed the charge sheet, there is no need to set aside the order passed by the Magistrate.ratio¶36-37
The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in the manner known to law.ratio¶43-44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (P. Velmurugan, J.) dismissed Crl.O.P.No.19053 of 2024, filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., challenging the order dated 22.12.2023 of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 (Crime No.826 of 2022) cancelling the petitioner's bail. The petitioner, arraigned for offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC (FIR registered 25.10.2022 on the complaint of the 2nd respondent), had been released on bail on a sworn statement to settle the amount to the defacto complainant in five months; on the defacto complainant's application the Magistrate cancelled the bail, finding the petitioner did not keep up the undertaking given before the Court while availing bail. The Court held there was no reason to interfere with the cancellation order; noting that the petitioner had not been secured since 22.12.2023 (so there was no apprehension of arrest) and that the respondent police had since filed the charge sheet, it held there was no need to set aside the Magistrate's order. The petition was dismissed, the connected Miscellaneous Petition closed, and the petitioner left at liberty to work out remedies in the manner known to law.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.19053 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.01.2025

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.19053 of 2024 and

¶6

Crl.M.P.No.11254 of 2024

Nirmala

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Inspector of Police Rajamangalam Police Station Chennai

¶11

T.Jayanthi ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. to set aside the order passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 in Crime No.826 of 2022 dated 22.12.2023, cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 dated 25.08.2023.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.O.P.No.19053 of 2024

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.V.V.Sairam For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For 2nd Respondent : No Appearance

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner to set

¶19

aside the order passed by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai,

¶20

in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 in Crime No.826 of 2022 dated 22.12.2023,

¶21

cancelling the bail granted to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶23

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st respondent police and

¶24

also perused the materials available on record.

¶25

It is seen that based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the

¶26

FIR in Crime No.826 of 2022 has been registered against the petitioner for the

¶27

offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC on 25.10.2022. Subsequently, based on

¶28

the sworn statement given by the petitioner to settle the amount to the defacto 2/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.19053 of 2024 complainant in five months, the learned Magistrate has released the petitioner

¶31

on bail, whereas, the petitioner, after availing bail, did not keep up his promise and therefore, the defacto complainant/2nd respondent filed a petition before the

¶32

Magistrate in Crl.M.P.No.37255 of 2023 to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner and the learned Magistrate, on finding that the petitioner did not keep up the undertaking given before the Court while availing bail, cancelled the bail by order dated 22.12.2023, granted to the petitioner. This Court does

¶33

not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Magistrate.

¶34