Mani v. The State Repby
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.3541 of 2022 Mani ... Petitioner Vs.
State Rep by Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.
(Crime No.9 of 2021)
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in C.C.No.4 of 2022 in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate NO.VI, Salem, in Crime No.9 of 2021, pending on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2021 for the offences under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC, in Crime No.9 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant completed B.E. Mechanical Engineering in the year 2017 and his father is working as a Mechanic in the Bus Depot at Neyveli Lignite Corporation. In the month of December 2018, the father of the defacto complainant got acquaintance with one Mayilvaganan through whom they met one Selvakumar/A2 and the petitioner/A1 who was the personal Assistant of the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The said Selvakumar and the petitioner assured to secure a job for the defacto complainant in the State Transport Corporation as an Assistant Engineer and demanded a sum of Rs.25 lakhs following which, the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.17 lakhs to them on various dates and after the announcement of 2021 election results, the said Selvakumar returned a sum of Rs.4 lakhs to the defacto complainant and assured him that he would get the balance amount of Rs.13 lakhs
from the petitioner and return the same to the defacto complainant. Since the balance amount was not returned, the present complaint was lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not receive any amount from the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 85 days from 28.11.2021. He would further submit that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed. Hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate would raise strong objection stating that the said Selvakumar/A2 is the close associate of the petitioner/A1. The defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the said Selvakumar by way of demand draft and the balance amount has been paid by cash and that the petitioner and the Selvakumar have shared the amount of Rs.17 lakhs received from the defacto complainant. Further, the accused received a sum of Rs.1,39,50,000/- from 14 victims on the promise of securing Government jobs and thereafter, they have returned a sum of Rs.82 lakhs to the victims and still there is balance amount to be returned to the victims.
5. This Court consider the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both counsel. Considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner and that the investigation was also completed and charge sheet filed, considering the fact that the petitioner undertakes to deposit the original settlement deed dated 23.01.2015, that he annexed along with the additional documents, which stands in the name of the petitioner along with the undertaking that he will not encumber the property, this Court is inclined to grant bail subject to the following conditions:
(a) the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem.
(b)the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity; (c) the petitioner shall report before the trial Court on every Friday apart from the Court hearing, for a period of two months and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (d) petitioner shall deposit the original settlement deed dated 23.01.2015, that he annexed along with the petition, which stands in the name of the petitioner and the original copy of the settlement
deed along with the undertaking that he will not encumber the property on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem; (e) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
(f) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
(g)on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and; (h)if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229-A IPC.
-sd/- 25/02/2022 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 JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, NO.6, SALEM.
2 THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE SALEM [FOR INFORMATION] 3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, SALEM DISTRICT.
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, SALEM.
5 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
+1CC to M/S.R.JOHN SATHYAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.No.3017 CRL OP.3541/2022 Date :25/02/2022 CSK 28/02/2022