Ulaganathan v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Seventeenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.14585 of 2021 ULAGANATHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] STATION HEAD OFFICER, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, CUDDALORE PS.

CRIME NO. 10 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. R.K.BHAVANANTHAM Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. GOPINATH, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the offence under Section 406 and 420 IPC in Cr.No.10 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is unacquainted with A1. He got introduced to A1 while he used to visit the house of one of his villager, namely, Kannadasan and thereafter the defacto complainant was approached by the accused persons who assured him to secure Nursing job for her daughter in the Tamil Nadu Health and Family Welfare Department and for which demanded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/. Believing the words of the petitioner, the defacto complainant paid a initial sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner herein in the presence of other villager and thereafter he paid Rs.1,85,000/- on two different occasions on the demand of the accused persons. While being so, when the defacto complainant asked for job, they did not give any proper reply and therefore, 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 and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has cheated a sum of Rs.7,35,000/- from two persons like that of the petitioner. Hence granting anticipatory bail at this stage when the investigation is pending, will affect the process of investigation.

5. 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 Government of Tamil Nadu 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. Considering the fact that the defacto complainant was cheated by the accused persons for the huge sum of money under false promise, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

-sd/- 17/08/2021 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 STATION HEAD OFFICER, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, CUDDALORE.

2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, CUDDALORE.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.R.K.BHAVANANTHAM Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.14585/2021 Date :17/08/2021 INBA 26/08/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/