Nagaraj v. The State Rep.By

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120 (B), 465 & 420 IPC, in Crime No.5 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in Crime No.5 of 2022, for offence under Sections 120 (B), 465 &420 IPC. Thus, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioners. 3.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that it is the case of job racketing. Defacto complainant and three others were cheated on the promise of getting employment in TNPWD. In the course of cheating, second accused received a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- and fourth accused received Rs.5,00,000/- through bank account. In fact, defacto complainant was given an appointment order with the following reference:(C.I.N.142/P/53/1JDATE 07.05.2018

GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CORPORATION OF TAMILNADU, INDIA). He further submitted that first and third accused were arrested and released on bail. 4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 5.It is seen from the FIR allegations that accused in this case had cheated the defacto complainant and two others and received money from them on the promise of getting employment in TNPWD. On the basis of their false promises, defacto complainant and two others, as submitted by the learned Government Advocate, paid a sum of Rs.21,00,000/-to the second accused and a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the fourth accused. Amount paid by defacto complainant is also not recovered.

6.Considering the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that amount paid is not recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

sli 18.07.2023

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

sli 18.07.2023