Uma v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.01.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.329 of 2022
1. Uma
...Petitioners
2. Sampath Kumar
Versus
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Arcot Town Police Station, Ranipet District.
(Crime No.519 of 2021)
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.519 of 2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Ramesh For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 409, 418, 420 IPC, in Crime No.519 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused persons had obtained gold loan by pledging their gold around Rs.24,88,000/- from the City Union Bank. Further, on 22.01.2021 , the petitioners along with other accused persons had gone to bank with four bungles for pledging in which, the bank officials arouse suspicious on them and bank official found that gold ornaments were fake. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He
further submitted that the second petitioner who mortgaged his property to bank to equate the gold loan with outstanding as on date 24.02.2021 Rs.25,36,335 and together with cost.. He further submitted that the property value more than gold loan and same was clearly stated in the simple mortgage deed, their liablity towards the gold loan was discharged by mortgaging the property. He further submitted that the co-accused had already been released on bail. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners along with other accused persons had cheated the bank. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioners and the investigation is almost completed. However, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the second petitioner has mortgaged his property and the loan was secured and the investigation is almost completed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
6.Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their, within a period of fifteen
(15) days after lifting of lockdown or the commencement of the Court's normal functioning whichever is earlier, before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Arcot, Ranipet District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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: (a) the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Court concerned may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
(b) the petitioners shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation.
(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(e) 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]; and; (f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 10/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF CUM JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARCOT, RANIPET DISTRICT.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VELLORE [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARCOT TOWN POLICE STATION, RANIPET DISTRICT.
4 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.K.RAMESH Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.452 CRL OP.329/2022 Date :10/01/2022 CSK 20/01/2022