Nanthakumar v. The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20495 of 2020 NANTHAKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [ RESPONDENT ] CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, JOB-RACKET CELL, TEAM-8, VEPERY, CHENNAI.
CR.NO.85 OF 2020 For Petitioner : M/S.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.KARTHIKEYAN, Additional Public Prosecutor 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 120B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 66 D of IT Act, 2000 in Crime No.85 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that there are totally Rs.20 lakhs involved in this transaction. A1 and his family members received money for a sum of Rs.15,000/- each from the defacto complainant and others for providing job to them in Sailors Maritime Acadamy, Visakapattinam. Subsequently, they did not arrange job to them and cheated their money by creating forged appointment order. Hence, the present complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and that the petitioner was working as staff under A1 company for maintaining files and documents. It is further stated that he was not paid three salary and he did not know about the forged appointment order and he had https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
not committed any committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that A1 and his family members collected a sum of Rs.15,000/- from the defacto complainant and others and totally they are 110 victims who deceived by creating forged appointment order for securing job and cheated approximately a sum of Rs.20 lakhs and therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Now-a-days it is a trend to deceive people by making false promises about providing and laundering money. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner and that investigation of the case is still underway, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be justifiable to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this point of time. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 16/04/2021 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 CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, JOB-RACKET CELL, TEAM-8, VEPERY, CHENNAI.
2.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, CHENNAI-104 CC to M/S.R.ALAGUMANI Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20495/2020 Date :16/04/2021 rg.20.04.2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/