Prabhu v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Nineteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.8894 of 2022 PRABHU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT CRIME NO.118 OF 2022 For Petitioner : M/S.D.ALEXIS SUDHAKAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, 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 for the alleged offence under Sections 364A, 342, 294(b), 323 and 506(II) of IPC, 1860 in Crime No.118 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The petitioner herein was arrayed as A-5 in a case where the de facto complainant is alleged to have been abducted for ransom. It is further alleged that after collecting Rs.35,00,000/-, the de facto complainant was released.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the de facto complainant herein had cheated the petitioner and others promising prosperity and high claim by sharing iridium. The de facto complainant shown fake Government of India circular and RBI circular and made the petitioner and others believe that he has a valid permit for trading the iridium. This type of fraud money has been commonly called as "Rice Pulling" among general public. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) states that the petitioner herein along with others have involved in the crime of abduction for ransom and he further submits that one of the accused person has disclosed the role played by the petitioner in scheming abduction and collected a ransom of Rs.35,00,000/- from the de facto complainant.

5.

The FIR as well as confession statement shows that the scheme of fraud been conceived by the de facto complainant and money collected from various persons, these petitioners having realised that they have been cheated by the de facto complainant, the accused persons forcibly abducted the de facto complainant and one among the accused posed himself as police man and after confining the de facto complainant near foot hills of Palani, they have collected Rs.35,00,000/- from the de facto complainant and let him free. 6.

In the light of the above fact this Court finds that anticipatory bail petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/04/2022 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, PERUR POLICE STATION, COIMBATORE DISTRICT 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.D.ALEXIS SUDHAKAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.8894/2022 Date :19/04/2022 JPA 22/04/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/