SILUVAI PRAGASAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

(2.) The petitioner has been charged for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 467, 468, 471, 420 read with 511 of I.P.C. According to the complaint, two persons by names Panchalingam and Rajkumar opened a bank account in a nationalised bank and presented a forged demand draft, drawn on Canadian Bank. The complaint was lodged by the Manager of the nationalised bank. Panchalingam is a Srilankan National. In order to help him to open an account in the bank, the petitioner is said to have introduced the other accused Rajkumar to Panchalingam.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the case was registered against the petitioner also, he was not informed of the case and he was not aware of such complaint registered against him. However, he was shown by the Investigating Officer as an absconding accused. When the charge sheet was also filed, the petitioner was shown as absconding accused and therefore, learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai directed the issue of Non Bailable Warrant, exercising power under Section 204(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the said section empowers the learned Magistrates to issue summons so. Without exercising such power, learned Magistrate has straight away issued Non Bailable Warrant. Hence, this petition for the grant of Anticipatory Bail.