E.Naveenkumar v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of February Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.1934 of 2022 E.NAVEEN KUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM.

CR.NO.42 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S.MANIKANNAN, Advocate for M/S.R.VENKATESAN Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 120 B, 465, 468, 471 and 506(i) of IPC in Cr.No.05 of 2021 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 collected a sum of Rs.49,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and 21 others, for securing job. But neither secured job nor returned the money. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the defacto complainant and the petitioners are close relatives. Due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant has given a false complaint. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is the main accused, who have collected an amount of Rs.49,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and 21 others, for securing job. Thereafter, he neither secure the job not return back the money. He further submitted that there are two previous cases pending against the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and previous cases pending against him, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed. -sd/- 01/02/2022 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 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.VENKATESAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.1934/2022 Date :01/02/2022 TA-07/02/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/