S.Mohammed Yousuff v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eleventh day of January Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.552 of 2022 S.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB, FORGERY INVESTIGATION WING, TEAM NO.5, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600007.
(CRIME NO.174/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.K.MANIKANDA RAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2021 for the offences under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act 2000, in Crime No.174 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2.This is the second bail application was filed before this Court. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2020, the de facto complainant Manisha Arun raj who is working in a "Ideas2it India Private Limited Company" received a call from the State Tax Officer Group-II, Inspection-I, Intelligence-I office that there is a "MMM enterprise" situated at Adams Street, Chennai which has used the de facto complainant's pan details to avail the GST number. Further, the State Tax officer had issued summons to the de facto complainant to appear for giving her reply. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged an online complaint and the same was enquired and closed. Thereafter, the
de facto complainant gave a walk-in complaint and received a C.S.R. No.219/2021. In the meanwhile, the de facto complainant had received an order from the State Tax officers Group-II, Inspection-I, Intelligence-I office, that she has to pay penalty of Rs.1.75 Crores. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 28.10.2021. Hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that earlier application was dismissed by this Court in Crl.O.P,No.24628 of 2021 dated 16.12.2021 and there is no change of circumstances. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner is involved in a very serious offence and earlier bail application was dismissed by this Court and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 11/01/2022 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB, FORGERY INVESTIGATION WING, TEAM NO.5, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600007.
2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
3 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.
CC to M/S.K.MANIKANDA RAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.552/2022 Date :11/01/2022 CSK 27/01/2022