G.Vanaraja v. State Rep By

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections, 406, 420 and 34 of IPC in Crime No. 83 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that one Dhanasekar lodged a complaint alleging that under the guise of securing government job, a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- has been received from him by the accused. After receiving money, the accused neither arranged job nor returned the money. Based on the complaint, the present case has been registered as against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he is an innocent person. He is running a job consultancy, registered under MSME in the name and style of Vanaaspire Consultancy for the past 13 years and offered services of giving training to the candidates and placing them in the respective fields viz., IT, Private banking Sectors and Hotel Management Sectors and accordantly, more than 1200 candidates have been placed in several jobs. During the month of June, 2020, one

Mohanraj was introduced to the petitioner by his friend, Manoj, informing that he was also doing consultancy and using his political influence, he can arrange job in several sectors. Believing the words of Manoj, the petitioner has given more than 88 lakh to said Mohanraj and his associate Manoj by several transactions from July 2020 to December 2021. Subsequently, he came to know that the Mohanraj is a fraud and has cheated several consultancies. Therefore, the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that under false promise, to secure government jobs in various departments, induced the victims to part with their money and received Rs.5 lakh to Rs.10 lakh from each of the candidates through petitioner's bank account. There are so many complainants are pending against the petitioner and more than 100 job aspirants have been cheated and the total amount cheated is more than Rs.3 crores. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has committed a very serious offence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30.06.2022 Lpp

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

Lpp 30.06.2022