Madras High CourtCRL OP/19037/2021dismissed

K.Velu v. State Rep.By

2021-10-08Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Eighth day of October Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19037 of 2021 K.VELU [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION (LAW AND ORDER), TIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.577 OF 2021.

For Petitioner : M/S. V.SUBRAMANI Advocate For Respondent : M/S.C.E.PRATAP, Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506(i) and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.577 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for the purpose of getting work permit in Canada. Thereafter, the petitioner neither secured job and nor returned the money, which led to the filing of the complaint. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner had already given a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Police Station, against the defacto complainant for the offence under Sections 147, 294(b), 342 and 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.315 of 2021. He also further submitted that the petitioner has collected a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and handed over to the M.K.Enterprises, Chennai. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submits that the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant and collected a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for the purpose of getting work permit in Canada. Thereafter, the petitioner neither secured job nor returned the money. He further submitted that investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that large amounts of money is involved and that the petitioner has cheated under the guise of job racket and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on, enlarging the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioner indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 08/10/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAVAKOTTAI POLICE STATION (LAW AND ORDER), TIRUVARUR DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. V.SUBRAMANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.19037/2021 Date :08/10/2021 TA-29/10/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/