S.Ganesh v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.07.2020

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.No.10001 of 2020 S.Ganesh

...Petitioner

Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, J-3 Guindy Police Station, Crime, Chennai.

... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.33 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Kartik For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.33 of 2020, 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 has started a finance company in the name and style of Shine Marketing Solution, and advertised in the general public to invest money in their company for which, they assured that they will pay high interest or house sites. In this regard, so many victims invested money and the accused persons swindled money to the tune of Rs.2,33,80,000/-. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the company called Shine Marketing Solution as alleged by the prosecution. He is an employee to the said company and he never collected money from the general public. Therefore he sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as third accused and he was one of the partners of Shine Marketing Solution. They assured to the general public that if money invested in their company, they will provide land for more cost. Thereafter all the accused persons cheated the victims to the tune of Rs.2,33,80,000/-. He further submitted that so far, 33 complaints have been received from 33 victims and the first accused has been arrested and no amount was recovered till now. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required and hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. It is seen that totally there are three accused in which the petitioner is arrayed as A3. He is the partner of a finance company named Shine Marketing Solution and they offered the general public to invest money for which, they assured that they will give land to them valued more than the money they invested. Thereafter, they cheated a sum of Rs.2,33,80,000/- received from 33 victims. Therefore the petitioner along with other accused persons has committed very serious offence as against the society. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. -sd/- 03/07/2020 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 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-3, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.S.KARTIK Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.10001/2020 Date :03/07/2020 cs 24/08/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/