J.Manohar @ Manoharan 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.359 of 2021 J.MANOHAR @ MANOHARAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-8,NEELANGARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CR NO.1423/2020.

For Petitioner : M/S.R.THANGAMANI 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 petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) of IPC, in Crime No.1423 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons have received a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for the purpose of getting government contract. Thereafter, neither any government contract was secured for the defacto complainant, nor the money was returned back to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint was registered. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has not received single penny from the defacto complainant. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that it is a case of cheating. He would further submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons have received a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

the defacto complainant for the purpose of getting government contract. Thereafter, they have failed to provide any government contract and refused to return back the money to the defacto complainant. He further submit that A1 and A2 are still absconding. He further submits that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the fact that large amounts of money is involved and that the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant on the guise of securing him a government contract and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on and further the fact that A-1 and A-2 are still absconding, 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, J-8,NEELANGARAI POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.THANGAMANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.5692 CRL OP.359/2021 Date :29/04/2021 RVR 13/05/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/