M. Rajendran v. The Inspector Of Police
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 324, 420 & 506 (2) IPC, in Crime No.523 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations made against the petitioner is that petitioner was paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 22.05.2019 for getting employment in Railway for the defacto complainant's son. However, for the payment said to have been made on 22.05.2019, complaint was given only in 2023. Not only that, there is also a reference that on 09.01.2023, after the defacto complainant gave the complaint, it is alleged that petitioner made a death threat to the defacto complainant. But, immediately, no complaint was given. In fact, petitioner had given a complaint against defacto complainant on 27.12.2022, alleging that defacto complainant cheated the petitioner to the tune of Rs.2,57,000/- on the promise of arranging marriage for the petitioner. On the basis of his complaint, investigation
is pending in Reference Number HUR22230162. Thus, he prayed for anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that petitioner received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on the promise of getting employment in Railway in 2018. Thereafter, he neither secured employment nor repaid the amount, despite of several requests made by the defacto complainant.
4.Considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 5.It is seen from the FIR allegations that defacto complainant said to have paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the petitioner on 22.05.2019, on the promise of getting employment to defacto complainant's son in Railway. Even after expiry of long time, petitioner did not get the job. When defacto complainant demanded money paid by him, he was threatened with rowdy elements. Therefore, on 09.01.2023, defacto complainant gave complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur,
against petitioner. After coming to know about this complaint, petitioner threatened defacto complainant through rowdy elements. Then, petitioner gave a cheque to the defacto complainant. When the cheque was presented, there was no sufficient fund in the account and the signature was also forged. Therefore, defacto complainant gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvallur, informing about the forged, fabricated bond and cheque given by petitioner. He was again threatened and on 09.04.2023, at about 7 a.m. Petitioner visited the house of the defacto complainant and took him to Akoor Natham Chitoor Road. At about 7.45 a.m., he threatened the defacto complainant with a knife to kill him.
6.Considering the allegations made in the FIR against the petitioner that he received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on the promise of getting job in Railway to the defacto complainant's son, then did not get the job and not returned the money, despite of various efforts taken by the defacto complainant for getting the money, this Court is of the view that mere delay in giving the complainant is not a ground for doubting
the allegations made in the complaint. Considering the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.07.2023 sli
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.
J.
sli 10.07.2023