T.Suresh v. The State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17-03-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
1. T.Suresh S/o.Thangamani Residing at No. 2474, Vannchinagar,Kaveripuram Post, Mettur Taluk, Salem District.
Petitioner(s) Vs
1. The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.
(Crime. No. 12 /2024) Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest a case in crime No. 12 of 2024 on the fi le of the Respondent and thus render Justice. For Petitioner(s):
Mr. Deepak Kumar C For Respondent(s):
Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate
ORDER
The case of the prosecution is that, the accused who was working as Relationship Executive in the Sriram Finance, Kolathur Branch, Salem, by fabrication of documents and forged loan applications, cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. Hence, the case.
2. This is the second anticipatory bail petition before this Court. The earlier anticipatory bail petition in Crl. O.P. No. 437 of 2025 was dismissed on 29.01.2025 by Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira and this anticipatory bail petition is listed before this Court pursuant to the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Crl. O.P. No. 31787 of 2024 on 04.03.2025.
3. The earlier anticipatory bail petition was dismissed with the following observations: - "4. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail is that,
the second accused, Silamparasan, who was working as Branch Team Leader in the defacto complainant's company, along with other Executives by furnishing false loan applications had cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. As far as this petitioner/A-5 is concerned, who is an Executive in the company had transferred an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- to the account of the second petitioner/A-12, who is none other his mother. He would further submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/defacto complainant submitted that the accused who was employed in the company as Manager, Team Leader, Executives has conspired together and cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. He would submit that the huge public money is involved and he vehemently objected for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the first petitioner/A5 and hence, the same is dismissed."
4. This Court is of the view that there is no change in circumstances. Further, this Court had dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail petition recently
on 29.01.2025. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this second anticipatory bail petition.
5. The anticipatory bail petition is therefore dismissed. 17-03-2025 AT To 1.The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.
(Crime. No. 12 /2024)
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
AT CRL OP No. 6370 of 17-03-2025