Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail refused
The petitioner shall appear before the concernedMagistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which theorder copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petitionstands dismissed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 438
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 120(b), 420, 465, 471
Key paragraphs
- Para 2424. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, A1and A2 are the husband and wife and they are the owner of the vehicle and A3 is only the broker. Admittedly, the vehicle of A1and A2 has been hypothecated to one Sri Ram Funds and…
Judgment
Cause title
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT(Criminal Jurisdiction)Thursday, the Eighth day of September Two Thousand ElevenPRESENTThe Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALACRL OP(MD) No.11572 of 2011YESUDHAS :PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.3-Vs-THE STATE REP. BYTHE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH,KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.( CR.NO.67 OF 2011
):RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANTFor Petitioner : M/S. C.MAYIL VAHANA RAJENDRAN, AdvocateFor Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 Cr.P.C.
ORDER:
The Court Made the following order:-The petitioner/accused No.3 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120(b), 420, 465 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.67 of 2011on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was charged under sections 120(b), 420, 465 and471 of IPC and A1 and A2 are introduced by the A3 who is the broker for obtaining vehicle loan from the defacto complainant. He is not aware that A1 and A2 have already hypothecated the vehicle in favour of Sri Ram Funds and the alleged occurrence has been taken place on August 2010 and the complaint has been given only on 18.8.2011 and the petitioner is nothing to with the commission of offence and he is only the broker and now he apprehend for arrest and he come forward with thisapplicationfor anticipatory bail.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that A1and A2 are the husband and wife and the vehicle belonging to A1and A2 and they borrowed Rs.5,50,000/- from the defactocomplaint without disclosing the fact that the vehicle has already been hypothecated to Sri Ram Funds and the document has been sent for Regional Transport Officer for making endorsement, then only they came to know the vehicle has been alreadyhypothecated to one Sri Ram Funds and hence, the case has been registered on 18.8.2011 and investigation is initial stage and hence, he prays for dismissal of this application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Operative part
Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, A1and A2 are the husband and wife and they are the owner of the vehicle and A3 is only the broker. Admittedly, the vehicle of A1and A2 has been hypothecated to one Sri Ram Funds and without disclosing this fact, A1 and A2 availed the loan forRs.5,50,000/- from the defacto complainant, after hypothicatingthe vehicle and the petitioner is the broker who has introducedA1 and A2 to the defacto complaint and even though the case has been registered on 18.8.2011 and he was not arrested, he neither interfered with the investigation nor absconded from the jurisdiction, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, KanyakumariDistrict and executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (RupeesTen Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. Thepetitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 6. The petitioner shall appear before the concernedMagistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petition stands dismissed. sd/- 08/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.)TO:1.The Judicial Magistrate No:I, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District.2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanyakumari District @ Nagercoil. 3. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Kanyakumari District.RP/14.09.2011/2P/5C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.11572/11 Date :08/09/2011.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petitioner shall appear before the concernedMagistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which theorder copy made ready, failing which, anticipatory bail petitionstands dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 438; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 120(b), 420, 465, 471.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.