Devanathan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Twenty Eighth day of July Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.12707 of 2021 DEVANATHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO.21/2021) For Petitioner : M/S M.VIMAL BOBBY CRIMSON Advocate For Respondent : MR. C.E.PRATAP, 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 offence under Section 420 IPC in Cr.No. 21 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the complaint is that during the year 2015, the complainant had acquainted with Nagaraj A2, who working as Driver in the Tamil nadu State Transport Corporation. He assured to secure a job to the wife of the complainant and he also introduced the petitioner herein to the defacto complainant as the Director of TNPSC Department. Believing the words of the accused persons, the defacto complainant made payment to the tune of Rs.56,90,000/- on different occasions. Thereafter when the defacto complainant asked for job, he did not give any proper reply and therefore, he approached the said Nagaraj and his son for return of money. Later they issued two cheques each for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- and executed a Deed of Compromise and when it was presented for clearance, it was dishonored for want of sufficient funds. While being so, despite of his repeated request for return of amount, it did not yield any fruitful result from the petitioners. Hence the defacto complainant lodged a police complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case as he only introduced A1 to the defacto complainant. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has received only Rs.4,00,000/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

on different occasion, except this amount, he did not receive any from the defacto complainant and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. In the recent past, this Court comes across very many cases involving these kind of offences, wherein the accused persons knowing very well that these kind of posts are filled by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission through direct recruitment, giving false promises to secure government job, with an intention to grab money from the innocent persons, who are longing for jobs due to unemployment.

5. A perusal of the FIR reveals that the petitioner herein had received amount to the tune of Rs.34,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on several occasion and considering the fact that the defacto complainant was cheated by the accused persons for the huge sum of money, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. For the reasons aforesaid, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 28/07/2021 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, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S M.VIMAL BOBBY CRIMSON Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.12707/2021 Date :28/07/2021 INBA 06/08/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/