Stephan Joseph Kennady v. State Represented By,
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 419 & 420 IPC, in Crime No.249 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an Advocate Clerk. It is falsely alleged that he received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as legal fees for moving suspension of sentence petition and that he asked the defacto complainant's sister and mother that a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- is required for giving bribe to Judge for correcting the mistake in the bail bond and that is not correct. Therefore this petition.
3.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that investigation in this case is pending. 4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
5.It is seen from the FIR allegations that defacto complainant was convicted by the Sub Court, Dharapuram and sentenced with four years imprisonment. He filed C.A.No.91/2019 against the conviction and sentence. When he was in jail, petitioner claiming himself as an Advocate, approached defacto complainant's sister and mother for getting bail. He demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for filing bail petition. Later, defacto complainant was granted bail as per the order of High Court. It was found that Sessions case number was wrongly given in the bail bond and therefore, he was not released on bail. Petitioner approached the defacto complainant's sister and mother and demanded Rs.2,00,000/- for correcting the mistake on the guise that this amount is required to be paid to the Judge and he received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Later, defacto complainant came to know that petitioner is not an Advocate, but, he cheated them claiming himself as an Advocate and received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-.
6.Considering the nature and seriousness of the allegations made against the petitioner that he received money on the guise of paying
it to a Judge for correcting the mistake in the bail bond and also the allegation that he claims himself as an Advocate contrary to the fact that he is not an Advocate, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for completing the investigation.
7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 19.07.2023 sli
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
sli 19.07.2023