R.Suseela Devi v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/04/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI R.Suseela Devi ... Petitioner/Accused-1 Vs The Inspector of Police, Tallakulam Police Station (Crime), Madurai.

in Crime No.284/2024.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.K.Kannan, 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.284/2024 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested on 12.03.2024 for the alleged offence under 1/4

Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.284 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's husband was working as a Sweeper and he died in the year 2015. The defacto complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner introduced A3 to the defacto complainant and that A3 being a broker, has arranged to get the service benefits of the defacto complainant's husband and finally a sum of Rs.20,58,038/- was credited to the defacto complainant's bank account. Thereafter, the petitioner along with others forcibly took the defacto complainant to the bank and withdrew the entire death benefit from her account. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent and due to money dispute, the defacto complainant made a false complaint against the petitioner and he is languishing in jail from 12.03.2024. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly objected for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioners along with others had forcibly taken the defacto complainant to the bank and withdrawn the entire death benefit from her account 2/4

and the Bank Manager appears to have objected for the same and the entire episode has also been captured in the CCTV footage.

5.Considering the nature of the offence, the manner in which the offence has been committed and the entire episode has already been captured in the CCTV footage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with a direction to the respondent police to collect the CCTV footage from the Bank authorities and to conduct a proper investigation. The investigation agency is also expected to conduct investigation as to the nature of the job of this petitioner and there are any other victims at the hands of the petitioner.

sd/- 25/04/2024 / TRUE COPY / /05/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

SJI 3/4

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION (CRIME), MADURAI.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

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

+ 1 CC TO Mr.K.K.KANNAN, ADVOCATE IN SR No.22467(F) DATED 25/04/2024

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6053 of 2024 Date :25/04/2024 SS/VR/SAR- /03/05/2024/4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4