Sugavanam Vijayakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.11.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.15376 of 2020 Sugavanam Vijayakumar ... Petitioner Vs.

State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch EDF-II, Team-III, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

Crime No.42 of 2020.

... Respondent Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Connection with the Crime No.42 of 2020 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.V.Sridharan For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.42 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner who is running a financial institute in the name of "M/s.Heritage India Properties" and induced the defacto complainant to invest in the business and believing the same the defacto complainant had invested a sum of Rs.1.25 crores whereas the petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the case of business transaction falsely projected as a case of cheating.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would vehemently contended that, the petitioner induced the defacto complainant to invest Rs.1.25 crores in the business and thereafter cheated the complainant. He would also submit that the investigation is pending.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor would vehemently oppose stated that the complainant was induced by the petitioner and believing the assurance the defacto complainant has invested a sum of Rs.1.25 crores and thereafter the petitioner has cheated him.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 10/11/2020 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH EDF-II, TEAM-III, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.15376/2020 Date :10/11/2020 MK:30/11/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/