Subash v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.11.2022

CORAM

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

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, R.5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

(Crime No.710 of 2022) ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.710 of 2022 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 03.11.2022, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 & 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.710 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant Sundaresan, is that the accused induced him to invest Rs.15 lakhs, on the assurance of giving Rs.90,000/- per week as returns and he had paid Rs.2.5 lakhs in two installments and later cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely roped-in in this case. He further submitted that a case of financial dispute has been falsely projected as the case of cheating. He further submitted that the petitioner is only an employee of A1 and the petitioner also understands that his employer A1 has borrowed the amount from the de-facto complainant and he has also 2/7

executed the necessary documents with regard to the same, however due to some loss in the business, he was unable to repay the amount and thereby, a false complaint was given by the de-facto complainant, as if the petitioner along with A1 have induced him to invest money in a finance scheme. He also stated that A1 in this case has been granted anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.No.27492 of 2022 vide order dated 11.11.2022. He also submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 03.11.2022, hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused had induced the de-facto complainant in the guise of giving fanciful returns, and on believing the same, the de-facto complainant had invested Rs.15 lakhs. He further submitted that the accused had returned Rs.2.5 lakhs to the defacto complainant and has failed to repay the balance amount. He also stated that the petitioner there is no previous case as against the petitioner, however, he oppose for grant of bail to the petitioner. 3/7

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

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel and also considering the fact that the co-accused has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five Thousand only) with two sureties , each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, 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;

4/7

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required; [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.

30.11.2022 ham 5/7

To

1. The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, R.5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

3. The Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6/7

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA., J.

ham 30.11.2022 7/7