Karthi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24/06/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN Karthi ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The State rep.by its., The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.4/2021). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Jeyakarthik, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.4 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent police on 22.04.2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 466, 468 and 471 I.P.C., in Crime No.4 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's son viz., Sivanath is a B.E., graduate. He is an accused in Cr.No.1085 of 2015 in Dindigul North Police Station. He was released on bail. When that is so, the accused Karthi came to the defacto complainant's house at about 08.00a.m., on 22.09.2015. He told her that he would make arrangements to get his son and Siva released on bail and he would also make arrangements to quash the case. He represented himself as an Advocate. When the defacto complainant asked how much would be the expenditure, he told her to 1/3

give money when he asked. As such, she gave the following amounts; (i) On 25.09.2015, Rs.15,000/- (ii)On 28.09.2015, Rs.3,00,000/- (iii)On 13.10.2015, Rs.6,00,000/- (iv)On 15.10.2015, Rs.10,00,000/- (v) On 03.04.2016, Rs.4,00,000/- (vi)On 04.07.2016, Rs.3,00,000/- (vii)On 08.09.2016, Rs.25,000/- (viii)On 20.09.2016, Rs.68,000/- (ix) Rs.2,50,000/- (x) On 28.11.2016, Rs.5,00,000/- and (xi)Rs.40,000 (xii) On 30.11.2016, Rs.3,00,000/- (xiii) On 12.01.2017, Rs.80,000/- (xiv) On 05.05.2017, Rs.30,000/- (xv) On 08.10.2017, Rs.4,00,000/- In 2017, on 1st October, when the defacto complainant asked the accused, when he would get the case quashed, he told her that he would get the order from the District Court, Dindigul. He protracted and evaded her request. On 05.01.

2021, he gave a copy of the order claiming that it was the order of acquittal from the District Court, Dindigul. When she checked up the order with some some other advocates known to her, she came to know that the order is forged order. When she informed him, he asked her to wait for some time and promised to return the money within a month. He did not return the money. Therefore, she gave this complaint.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he is falsely implicated in this case. His contention is that no one would ask such a huge amount for quashing the F.I.R. The defacto complainant has not produced any material to show the payment of the amount. This is a false case and therefore, he seeks bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed this petition on the ground that the investigation in this case is pending. He also produced a copy of the bail order alleged to have forged by the petitioner in Crp.No.23/2015, dated 16.10.2017.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the materials placed on record.

6. The allegations against the petitioner is very serious in nature. He forged the bail order. Not only that, he said to have received huge sum from the defacto complainant on the promise of getting the case against her son quashed. The investigation is in a preliminary stage. If the petitioner is released on bail, there is a possibility of tampering the evidence and absconding and thus 2/3

protracting the investigation and trial. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 24/06/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. TO 1.THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THENI DISTRICT.

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.7906 of 2021 Date :24/06/2021 SSL TK/JC/SAR-II/29.06.2021 : 3P/4C 3/3