Shiyamala v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.100 of 2021 1 SHIYAMALA [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 DHILIP KUMAR 3 SUBRAMANIYAN Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, D.C.B. ARIYALUR (CRIME NO.11 OF 2020) For Petitioner : M/S.T.SHANMUGAM Advocate For Respondent : MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners had collected huge amount from several persons for the purpose of getting job at Canada Thereafter, the petitioners neither secured job nor returned the money, which led to the filing of the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioners had collected huge amounts from several persons for the purpose of getting job at Canada. Thereafter, the petitioners neither secured job nor returned the money. It is further submitted that investigation is still pending.

Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

5. Considering the fact that large amounts of money is involved and that the petitioners have cheated under the guise of job racket and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on, enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioners indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 29/04/2021 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, D.C.B. ARIYALUR 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.T.SHANMUGAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.100/2021 Date :29/04/2021 MK:30/06/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/