SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 2035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
Juzar Saifuddin & Others – Appellants
Versus
The Inspector of Police City Crime Branch Police Station, Coimbatore & Others – Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 14451 of 2023 & Crl.M.P. No. 9467 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties:N. Jothi, Senior Counsel, M/s. G. Mohana Krishnan, Advocates, Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate(Crl. Side), V. Karthikeyan, M/s. J. Ramesh, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that in a bail application, detailed inquiry on the merits of the case is not required, and the decision to grant bail is based on the nature of the case, the custody status of the accused, and the need for further detention.

Headnote:

Bail - Criminal Original Petition - Sections 120 B, 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC - [Sections 120 B, 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC] - The court allowed the petitioners to be released on bail with conditions after considering the nature of the case and the fact that the petitioners were in judicial custody from 01.06.2023. The court emphasized that detailed inquiry on the merits of the case was not required in a bail application and that the rival claims were to be proved mainly on the basis of documentary evidence. The court ordered the petitioners to be released on bail with specific conditions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought bail in connection with a case where they were arrested and in judicial custody for offenses under Sections 120 B, 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC. The case involved a dispute between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, who alleged that the petitioners had cheated him in a business transaction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the case primarily involved a business transaction and that the petitioners were in judicial custody from 01.06.2023. The court concluded that further detention of the petitioners was not necessary and ordered their release on bail with specific conditions.

Issues: The main issues revolved around the nature of the transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant, the allegations of cheating, and the appropriateness of granting bail considering the nature of the case and the petitioners' custody.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the understanding that detailed inquiry on the merits of the case was not required in a bail application and that the rival claims were to be proved mainly on the basis of documentary evidence. The court also considered the fact that the petitioners were in judicial custody and emphasized that any further detention was not necessary.

Final Decision: The court ordered the petitioners to be released on bail with specific conditions, including executing a bond, providing sureties, reporting to the police daily, and refraining from absconding or tampering with evidence or witnesses.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to enlarge the petitioners on bail in Crime No. 19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police pending investigation.

Crl.M.P.No.9467 of 2023 is filed by defacto complainant D.Denston, praying to permit the petitioner to intervene in Crl.O.P.No.14451 of 2023.)

1. Crl.M.P.No.9467 of 2023 is filed by defacto complainant D.Denston, praying to permit him to intervene in Crl.O.P.No.14451 of 2023. This intervening petition is allowed and defacto complainant is permitted to make his submissions as intervenor in this Criminal Original Petition.

2. This Criminal Original Petition is filed praying to enlarge the petitioners on bail in connection with Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of respondent police.

3. Mr.N.Jothi, learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that defacto complainant is a moneylender. He advanced money to accused and as a security for the loan advanced, he obtained 39 cheques and two sale agreements. Petitioners, including other accused, have repaid double the loan amount. Despite the payment of double the loan amount, defacto complainant had given a false complaint. On the basis of the said false complaint, First Information Report in Crime No.19 of 2013 was registered for the offences under Sections 120 B, 420, 406, 506(i) of IPC. Petitioners were arrested on 01.06.2023 and are in judicial custody.

4. It is the further submission of learned senior counsel Mr.N.Jothi that defacto complainant had earlier given a complaint against petitioners. On the basis of the said complaint, petitioners were frequently called for enquiry. Therefore, petitioners filed Crl.O.P.No.18900 of 2021 seeking direction to respondent police not to harass petitioners in the guise of enquiry. This Court passed an order on 21.10.2021 directing petitioners to appear before respondent police on 08.11.2021 and submit documents in support of their case. Accordingly, petitioners appeared before respondent police on 08.11.2021 for enquiry and submitted documents and after perusing the documents submitted by petitioners, further action was dropped against petitioners.

5. It is also the submission of learned senior counsel Mr.N.Jothi that defacto complainant again filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.7384 of 2022 seeking direction for registration of the complaint given by him dated 19.08.2021. This Court passed an order on 15.06.2022 stating that this Court cannot issue direction for registration of First Information Report and it is for the petitioner therein to pursue his right as per Code. It appears that no First Information Report was registered on the basis of defacto complainant''s complaint dated 19.08.2021. Instead of filing petition under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, defacto complainant had given present complaint nearly after two years, only with a view to harass petitioners. After change of officers in the police department, present complaint was given. Petitioners have filed a suit in O.S.No.348 of 2021 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kollam, seeking various reliefs including the relief of declaring the sale agreement dated 12.09.2019 executed between first plaintiff and defendant of the suit is not binding on the plaintiff, relief seeking return of blank signed cheques etc. Defacto complainant filed written statement only on 21.05.2023. When the case is pending, present complaint was given and First Information Report was registered. Petitioners are in judicial custody from 01.06.2023 and he prays for release of petitioners on bail.

6. In reply, learned counsel for intervenor / defacto complainant Mr.V.Karthikeyan submitted that first petitioner is a habitual offender, he used to get loan and will not repay the amount. The suit in O.S.No.348 of 2021 is a pre-emptive suit filed to avoid similar criminal legal action against petitioners. Original docu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top