S.Mohammed Yousuff v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Sixteenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V.THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24628 of 2021 S.MOHAMMED YOUSUFF [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CCB, FORGERY INVESTIGATION WING, TEAM NO.5, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600007.
(CRIME NO.174/2021) For Petitioner : M/S.K.MANIKANDA RAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR.N.S.SUGANTHAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.10.2021 for the offences under Sections 419, 420 of IPC and under Section 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No.174 of 2021, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2020, the de facto complainant Manisha Arun raj who is working in a "Ideas2it India Private Limited Company" received a call from the State Tax Officer Group-II, Inspection-I, Intelligence-I office that there is a "MMM enterprise" situated at Adams Street, Chennai which has used the de facto compainant's pan details to avail the GST number. Further, the State Tax officer had issued summons to the de facto complainant to appear for giving her reply. Hence, the de facto complainant lodged an olnine complaint and the same was enquired and closed. Thereafter, the de facto complainant gave a walk-in complaint and received a C.S.R. No.219/2021. In the meanwhile, the de facto
complainant had received an order from the State Tax officers GroupII, Inspection-I, Intelligence-I office, that she has to pay penalty of Rs.1.75 Crores. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 42 days from 28.10.2021. Hence, he would pray for grant of bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would raise strong objection stating that as per the investigation of the Cyber Crime Police Department, the petitioner by misusing the Pan details of the defacto complainant has got GST registration and that the investigation needs a detailed enquiry.
5.On seeing the gravity of offence, the case needs a detailed investigation and if the petitioner is released on bail, there is every possibility of the petitioner getting abscond and and tampering the evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-sd/- 16/12/2021 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, CCB, FORGERY INVESTIGATION WING, TEAM NO.5, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600007.
2 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI.
3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.
CC to M/S.K.MANIKANDA RAJ Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.24628/2021 Date :16/12/2021 CSK 28/12/2021