Antony Jefrey v. The State Rep By

Orders Reserved on 07.09.2023 Orders Pronounced on RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN.,J.

The petitioner who is A7 in Crime No.2 of 2019, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420, 506(1) of IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments Act, 1997), seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The complaint was made by one Rohit Infant Raj before the Economic Offences Wing, Kancheepuram on 24.07.2023, in the complaint it was alleged that he was working in a company by name FST Info Tech as a Technical Support Engineer and his friend, one Seelan, told the defacto complainant (Rohit Infant Raj) that he was working part time in a company by name Q-Net and is also receiving 10 percent on every referral he adds. He also convinced the defacto complainant to invest money in the company and the defacto complainant invested more than five lakh rupees in the company. Later the defacto complainant was taken to Residency Hotel, T.Nagar for a 1/4

meeting, there he met many others through an online meeting on a Zoom call who told about the mode of operation of the business. The defacto complainant himself later added one Joel in the business as his referral and the said Joel transferred a sum of Rs.4,10,000/- on 14.01.2022 to the Accused No.4 one Renat Nivedha, one Seelan were added as accused for the above mentioned offences.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without sending notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C., the petitioner's name has been incorporated in the complaint.

4. The learned Government Advocate would contend that more than 109 depositors to the extent of Rs.3 Crores and during the investigation, the investigation officer had assessed 147 documents to show that there is a clear indication that A6 & A7 have contributed in collection of funds under the guise of Direct Selling Company operating in India and invited the defacto complainant to invest money in the company and thereafter not returned the amount and the matter is under investigation. 2/4

5. Considering the nature, gravity of the offence, quantum of depositors, the amount involved, the specific over tact alleged against A6 & A7 and the fact that the matter is at preliminary stage, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. rgr 3/4

RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN., J.

rgr Per-Delivery order in 4/4