Ranjith @ Ranjithkumar v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Seventeenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24608 of 2021 RANJITH @ RANJITHKUMAR [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, [ RESPONDENT ] CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, JOB-ROCKET CELL. TEAM NO. 9, VEPPERY, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

(CRIME NO. 177 OF 2021) For Petitioner : M/S.P.MUTHAMIZH SELVAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN 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 Section 34, 406, 420, 465, 468 of IPC 1860 in Crime No.177 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others cheated the defacto complainant by receiving a sum of Rs.

10,00,000/- on the assurance of securing a Government job for the defacto complainant, and after that A1 in this case had issued an appointment order through mobile and the original order will come through post and no order had come, no order has come as per the promise of A1. Hence, the defacto complainant demanded to repay the amount and the same was refused by A1. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) on instructions submits that the A1 was detained under Goondas Act. He further submits that petitioner along with others have cheated many persons to the tune of Rs.5.3 Crores and more than Rs.2 Crores were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

collected through the petitioner.

He further submits that investigation is still pending.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by both counsel and also considering the fact that the huge amount was involved in this case which needs detailed investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, the Criminal original petition is dismissed. -sd/- 17/12/2021 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-ROCKET CELL. TEAM NO. 9, VEPPERY, CHENNAI DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.P.MUTHAMIZH SELVAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.24608/2021 Date :17/12/2021 CSK 05/01/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/