Muthukumar v. State, Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.05.2020

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI Crl. O.P.No.7694 of 2020 1.Muthukumar, M/46 years, S/o.Manickam 2.Alagiammal, F/46 years, W/o.Muthukumar Both are residing at No.2/239, Teachers Nagar, Mepiripattu Village, Harur Post & Taluk, Dharmapuri District.

.. Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 & 2 Vs.

State represented by the Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

.. Respondent/Complainant (Crime No.61 of 2020) 1/6

Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code.

For Petitioners : Mr.V.Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr.M.Jothikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) of Indian Penal Code, 1882 in Crime No.61 of 2020, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners promised the defacto complainant that they will get job for his son-in-law and received a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. They did not get any job and after repeated demand, they repaid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. When the defacto complainant demanded money, the petitioners abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. On complaint, case has been registered against the petitioners under Sections 120(B), 406, 420, 294(b) and 2/6

506(i) of Indian Penal Code, 1882.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are not involved in the offence as alleged by the prosecution. There was a money dispute between the petitioners and defacto complainant. The petitioners borrowed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and the same was returned. The defacto complainant demanded more money and when the same was refused by the petitioners, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioners and prayed for granting anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police submitted that this is a case of job racketing and investigation is pending and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

3/6

6.Considering the nature of offence of job racketing and investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.05.2020 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No 4/6

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Harur Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

V.M.VELUMANI, J., krk Crl. O.P.No.7694 of 2020 22.05.2020 6/6