In cases involving money transaction disputes, the court may grant anticipatory bail if there is a genuine dispute and the accused is not likely to abscond or interfere with the investigation.

CRL OP(MD). No.16955 of 2021

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

( Criminal Jurisdiction )

Date : 12/01/2022

PRESENT

The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

CRL OP(MD). No.16955 of 2021

1.Jancy

2.Jayachandran

... Petitioners/A1 and A2

Vs

The State rep.by

The Inspector of Police,

Uthamapalayam Police Station,

Theni District.

Crime No.578/2021

... Respondent/Complainant

For Petitioners: M/s.M.E.RANISELVAM

Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.RMS.SETHURAMAN

Additional Public Prosecutor

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C

PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.578 of 2021 on the file

of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :-

The petitioners/Accused 1 and 2, apprehending arrest at the

hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable

under Sections 294(b), 417, 406, 448, 422, 120B, 420 and 506(2) IPC

in Crime No.578 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek

anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and

the de-facto complainant are the owners of adjacent lands. Due to

the said relationship, the second petitioner requested a loan from

the de-facto complainant to start a business at Chennai and the de-

facto complainant gave a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- and the petitioners

have signed in the stamp papers for the said loan amount. The

petitioners agreed to pay the interest for the said loan amount and

thereafter, failed to pay the interest and threatened the de-facto

complainant with dire consequence. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in

this case.

1/3

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

CRL OP(MD). No.16955 of 2021

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent

police submitted that the petitioners promised to pay the interest

for receiving a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant

and later, failed to repay the same. Hence, he strongly opposed to

grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.A reading of the First Information shows that there was a

money transaction issue between the petitioners and the de-facto

complainant and according to the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor, the petitioners promised to pay the interest for

receiving a sum of Rs.18,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant and

later, failed to repay the same. It was found that the company

alleged to have been run by the petitioners also found to be non-

existent. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

For the purpose of making settlement, the matter was referred to the

mediation and because of the non appearance of the de-facto

complainant, the matter could not be settled and on going through

the averments made in the First Information Report, this Court is

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and

the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of

arrest or on their appearance, before the learned Judicial

Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, on condition that the petitioners shall

execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only)

each with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of

the learned Magistrate concerned and the petitioners shall appear

before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. until further

orders. The petitioners shall comply with the condition stipulated

under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously.

7.The petitioners shall appear before the concerned Magistrate

within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy

made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands

dismissed.

sd/-

12/01/2022

/ TRUE COPY /