James Osebhonien Lawrance v. Ccid-Tiruppur

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 22.04.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120(B) r/w 66(D) of IT Act and Sections 14(a), 14(b), 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act in Crime No.17 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, petitioner is an accused in Crime No.17 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 420 and 120(B) r/w 66(D) of IT Act and Sections 14(a), 14(b), 14A(b) of the Foreigners Act. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He is in judicial custody from 22.04.2023 and thus, petitioner filed this petition seeking bail.

3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) vehemently oppose this petition, on the ground that, this is not the only case, where petitioner is arrayed as an accused. There are other cases reported on the similar lines. So far, petitioner has four previous 1/4

cases pending against him. Petitioner has fabricated and forged his passport. If he is released on bail, there is no possibility of securing him for facing the trial. The investigation in this case is not completed. Therefore, he prays for dismissing this petition.

4. Mr.Naveenkumar Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant strongly opposed this petition, on the ground that, it is not only the defacto complainant, who lost Rs.98,28,000/-, but there are several other innocent and genuine investors who lost money. Therefore, he prays for dismissing this bail petition.

5. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.

6. The first information report allegations in brief shows that, petitioner made a business dealing with the defacto complainant for securing certain raw materials for preparing medicine to treat brain cancer. Believing the words of the petitioner, defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.98,28,000/-. However, the said business had not taken place. Thereafter, defacto complainant realised that, he was cheated by the 2/4

petitioner.

7. Considering the way in which petitioner cheated the defacto complainant and the fact that there are four previous cases pending against the petitioner and that he forged and fabricated his passport and that this Court finds merits in the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that, if the petitioner is released on bail, it would be difficult to secure the petitioner for facing the trial, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 04.07.2023 (2/2) gd G.CHANDRASEKHARAN. J.

3/4

gd 04.07.2023 4/4