← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/23982/2022granted

Manimaran v. State Rep By

2022-10-11Honourable Mr Justice A.D.Jagadish Chandira6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.10.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Manimaran ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, S-11 Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chengalpet District.

Crime No.648 of 2022.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Crime No.648 of 2022, on the file of the respondent Police for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC.

For Petitioner : Mr.Durai Kannan For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Annamma 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.09.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.648 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that he has engaged in the business of selling laptops, the accused induced him and had purchased the laptops worth about Rs.39,38,000/- and had cheated the defacto complainant by refusing to pay the amount.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is a Managing Director of Private Limited Company. He would submit that a case of commercial transaction between the petitioner and the de-facto complainant has been falsely projected as a case of criminal breach of trust and cheating and the defacto complainant had attempted to recover the money by using Police force illegally. Even as per the complaint, two earlier transactions have been 2/6

made, during which, the petitioner has properly paid the amount. He would further submit that in this transaction, there was some dispute between the petitioner and the defacto complainant and owing to certain financial crisis, the petitioner was unable to repay the amount within time. He would further submit that on a false complaint, the petitioner has been arrested. He would also submit that without prejudice, the petitioner to show his bonafides, is prepared to deposit original title deeds of documents of immovable property worth Rs.25 lakhs at the time of furnishing the sureties. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the accused had induced the defacto complainant and purchased the laptops worth about Rs.39,38,000/- and later cheated him. He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against him. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned counsel for the intervener/defacto complainant would submit that the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant and 3/6

purchased some laptops worth about Rs.39,38,000/- and later cheated him by refusing to pay the amount. Therefore, she vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

7.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner is ready to deposit original title deeds of documents of immovable property worth Rs.25 lakhs at the time of furnishing the sureties, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

8.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on him depositing original title deed of an immovable property worth Rs.25,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs) and on him 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 Judicial 4/6

Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, and on further conditions that: [a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the repondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness 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 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]; [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

11.10.2022 vkr 5/6

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

vkr To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, S-11 Tambaram Police Station, Tambaram, Chengalpet District.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

11.10.2022 6/6