Sivakumar v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420, 294(b), 506(ii) of I.P.C. in Crime No.410 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that this is a case of job racketing. The petitioners approached the defacto complainant and promised her to seek a Government job for her through A3, for which, they demanded a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-. However, as the husband of defacto complainant denied to give such huge amount, 1st petitioner suggested them to settle the amount in 4 instalments, but they failed to seek a Government job and also failed to return the amount, however, when she demanded to return the amount, the petitioners abused her and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that they have no deceptive mind and they did not cheat the defacto complainant. He would submit that they are no way connected with the offence and they have not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that they never cheated her and there is no iota of truth in the prosecution case and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioners have been suffering incarceration from 24.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that there are five accused involved in this case and the petitioners are arrayed as A1 and A2. He would submit that based on a false promise to obtain a job in Government, the defacto complainant had given a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-, but they failed to return the amount and they have issued a forged appointment order. He would submit that now all the other accused are arrested and they are in judicial custody. He would submit that if they are released on bail, they would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed.

Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the fact that detailed investigation is to be conducted in the case of job racketing and also considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner by giving false promise, they have obtained a sum of Rs.13 lakhs and issued forged appointment order and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

19.01.2023 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 19.01.2023