Santhoshraj v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 24.08.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.10773 of 2020 Santhosh Raj ... Petitioner Vs.

State by The Inspector of Police, Thiruppathur Town Police Station, Vellore District.

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.1341 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondent : Mr. M.Mohammed Riyaz Additional Public Prosecutor.

O R D E R

(This case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences publishable under Sections U/s.406, 420, 294(b) & 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.1341 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Murugan is that the accused A1 Perumal had represented that he is working in Rural Development department and his wife Malarkodi A2 is working as Commissioner of Thirupathur Municipality and his son in law is working as Chief Engineer in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Vellore and that Narayanan A4 was working as Zonal Manager in Rural Development department and Dhandapani A5 was working as Assistant Director of Water Board and they have made the defacto complainant believe that they have properties more than 100 crores and they have induced the defacto complainant and the other victims (30 in number) and received an amount of Rs.1.72 crores under the guise of obtaining Government job and also allotting the plots in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that he belongs to a different community and that he has married the daughter of the first accused against his wish and that they are living separately whereas a false complaint has been given as if the petitioner cheated the victim along with his father-in-law. He would further submit that the petitioner is working as a PG Assistant in Private school in Thiruppathur and prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. A1 is the father in law and A2 is the mother in law and all the accused joined together and posing themselves to be well connected with the high officials had cheated the gullible victims and received Rs.80 Lakhs from 20 people on the false promise of obtaining Government job and received Rs.92 Lakhs from 10 people under the guise of allotting housing board plots at lesser rate. He would further submitted that investigation is pending and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances, considering the submissions made by the learned counsels and the fact that huge amount has been cheated and investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 24/08/2020 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 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUPATHUR POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT.

CC to M/S. E.KANNADASAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.10773/2020 Date :24/08/2020 MK:09/09/2020