G.Ramesh (M/28) v. The State Of Tamilnadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifth day of December Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice N. AUTHINATHAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24114 of 2017 G.RAMESH [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU [ RESPONDENT ] THROUGH THE, INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ERODE - DISTRICT.

(CR.NO.11 OF 2017) For Petitioner : M/S.DEEPAN UDAY Advocate For Respondent : MR. B.RAMESH BABU, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences under Sections 420 of IPC in Cr.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police.

2. Heard both sides.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the A2 and A3 are parents of A1. This petitioner has nothing to do with the offence. He has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that co-accused A4 was also granted anticipatory bail and therefore, the petitioner may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that a private complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sathyamangalam, who referred the matter to the respondent for registering a case and investigation. Three persons were cited as accused. In the complaint, it is alleged that first accused who was involved in online trading received Rs.2,00,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the promise of giving high returns to him. Initially, he made some payments as assured and issued 8 cheques each for Rs.25,00,000/- and also executed an agreement. Later he failed to keep up his words and the cheques were also dishonoured. It is further alleged that A1 in her confession statement stated that she has given Rs.35 lakhs to the petitioner from the amount received from the defacto complainant.

5. Having regard to the submission that the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the statement of A1, A4 was also granted anticipatory bail, the petitioner is willing to cooperate with the investigating agency and as it is not stated that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions :-

6. (i) Anticipatory bail is granted.

(ii) The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest or appearance before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order on his executing a 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 said Magistrate. (iii) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation.

-sd/- 05/12/2017 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 CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE ERODE.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, ERODE - DISTRICT.

+1CC to M/S.DEEPAN UDAY Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR NO.22086 CRL OP.24114/2017 Date :05/12/2017 MK:14/12/2017