Sivakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of November Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice S.VAIDYANATHAN CRL OP(MD) No.19980 of 2016 SIVAKUMAR ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED-1 Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PUDUKOTTAI, CR NO. 13 OF 2016 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT GOPALAKRISHNAN ...PETITIONER/DEFACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.K.G.ARUN KUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mrs.S.PRABHA Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervenor : D.RAMESHKUMAR, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 I.P.C in Crime No.13 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking anticipatory bail.

2.

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner while working as Appraiser in State Bank of Travancore, Pudukottai Branch has appraised spurious gold as genuine gold in respect of 31 gold loan accounts and thereby cheated the bank to the tune of Rs.63.67 lakhs.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the State Bank of Travancore collected Rs.10,00,000/- from the petitioner and closed the audit objection and the Manager of the bank also collected the documents of the petitioner relating to his property worth about Rs.50 lakhs and hence prays for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

5. Learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the Bank wants to verify the genuineness of the property document

produced by the petitioner and now the borrowers of the 31 gold loan accounts started complaining that they do not know who has pledged jewels on their behalf and their connection with the petitioner has to be enquired and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. Learned Government Advocate would submit that investigation is pending.

7. Taking note of the fact that serious offence is said to have been committed by the petitioner, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 15/11/2016 / TRUE COPY / Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, PUDUKOTTAI, 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 cc to MR.R.RAMESHKUMAR, Advocate SR.No.69666 JAM/23.11.16/GSV-PM/AR -CS 2/2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.19980 of 2016 Date :15/11/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/