Chellammal v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighteenth day of December Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.23677 of 2015 CHELLAMMAL ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAKAD POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI, CR NO.60/2015.

... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S N.SEKAR ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : MR.K.ANBARASAN, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE ( CRL. SIDE) FOR INTERVENOR : MR.R.BABU JEGANATH, ADVOCATE PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/sole accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.12.2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 420 @ 417, 420 and 406 in Crime No.60 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on giving promise of getting job in Public Works Department to the defacto complainant's son, the petitioner and her husband received a sum of Rupees Fourteen lakhs from the defacto complainant on 12.12.2012. Thereafter the petitioner and her husband failed to arrange the job for the defacto complainant's son. When the defacto complainant demanded the money, they dragged on. Subsequently, she came to know that the petitioner's husband died on 06.01.2015. Immediately the defacto complainant went to the petitioner's house and demanded her to return the money. The petitioner abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened with dire consequences.

3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a widow and she lost her husband on 06.01.2015. She is an agriculturist. She is innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The defacto complainant is the ex-friend of the petitioner's husband. After death of her husband, the defacto complainant has given a complaint in order to extract money from the petitioner.

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

4. The learned Government (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and her husband, on promise of getting a job to the defacto complainant's son, received a sum of Rupees Fourteen Lakhs from the defacto complainant. Neither they obtain a job nor return the amount. Both the petitioner and her husband executed a document to the effect that they will return the amount to the defacto complainant.

5. Considering the serious charges levelled against the petitioner and also considering the gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 18/12/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALAKAD POLICE STATION, TIRUNELVELI,

2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

3. THE OFFICERS INCHARGE, DISTRICT WOMEN PRISON, KOKKIRAKULAM, TIRUNELVELI DISTRICT.

+ 1 CC TO MR.R.BABU JAGANATH, ADVOCATE IN SR NO. 72643 SSL TE/GSV-AN/SAR-II : 22/12/2015 : 2P/5C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.23677 of 2015 Date :18/12/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/