B.Dineshwar v. The State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.08.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.DHANABAL B.Dineshwar
...Petitioner
Vs.
State represented by, The Inspector of Police CCW Ranipet Police Station Ranipet District (Crime No.17 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.17 of 2024 on the file of respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Kalimuthu For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinothkumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) ***** 1/6
O R D E R
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.07.2024 for the offence under Section 66D of IT (amended) Act, 2008 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.17 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant stating that he has been appointed in the District Collector's Office further, for processing the application, he demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the defacto complainant and the defacto complainant had paid the same through G-pay. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for more than 43 days; that he is ready to obey the conditions imposed by this Court and produce substantial sureties for his due release on bail. Hence, he prays for the grant of bail to the petitioner.
2/6
4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police submitted that petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant to a tune of Rs.30,000/- stating that he has been appointed in the District Collector's Office and sought the amount for processing the application. Further, he also submitted that there is no previous case as against the petitioner. However, he vehemently objected to granting bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the submissions made on both sides, the nature of offence, and also taking into consideration the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and also there is no previous case pending as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail 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 learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet, and on 3/6
further conditions that:
[a]the petitioner shall report before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate at Ranipet, everyday at 10.30 a.m. and 5:30 pm until further orders;
[b]the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [d]on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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];
[e] if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A of the IPC.
22.08.2024 dhk 4/6
To 1.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ranipet 2.Central Jail, Vellore 3.The Inspector of Police CCW Ranipet Police Station Ranipet District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
5/6
P.DHANABAL, J.
dhk 22.08.2024 6/6