B. Shabarish Kumar v. The State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 120B, 109 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.2 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is running a Eronexus Immigration Limited and sending the person for avocation to abroad, thereby he promised the defacto complainant that he will secure a job in abroad, for which, he said to have received a sum of Rs.7 lakhs from him. But, neither he secured the job for the defacto complainant nor repaid the amount paid by him. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this is the second petition seeking for anticipatory bail and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact, the petitioner entered into an agreement with one Muffee Ahamed, proprietor of M/s.Asfiya Travels, Manpower Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., agreeing to refer job opportunities in Arab and European countries and in terms of agreement, they arranged job. However, the said Muffee Ahamed on receiving the amount fraudulently 1/3

securing job in Arab and European countries, he wound up the said company and ran away with money. In this regard, the petitioner also lodged a complaint in Crime No.2 of 2023 before the respondent police against him. Hence, he is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that he is ready to abide any condition as may be imposed by this court. Hence, he pray for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) would submit that an amount of Rs.1,61,00,000/- was involved in this case and so far more than 30 persons gave a complaint. So, if he is granted anticipatory bail, there is possibility of hampering witness and tampering evidnece. Hence, he vehemently raised objections for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the above said facts and also considering submissions of both sides and on considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and also the fact that more than crores of amount involved in this case and so far, 30 persons gave complaints and also there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal original petition stands dismissed. 02.11.2023 rpp 2/3

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

rpp 02.11.2023 3/3