R.Azhagumaniselvam @ Selvam v. The State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 I.P.C. in Crime No.341 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that by utilising his employment in L & T company, the petitioner said to have conducted fake interviews with the help of A2, who impersonated his name as Prem and collected a sum of Rs.15 lakhs from the defacto complainant by giving false assurance that they will secure job at L & T Compay at Manapakkam. But, they failed to arrange job nor returned the money, thereby he has committed cheating. It is also alleged that so far 20 victims were affected and collected a sum of Rs.50 lakhs from them under the false promise of securing job and shared the amount among the accused. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the above case and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. He would submit that

investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 28 days from 09.11.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for intervenor raised objections stating that by giving false assurance and conducting fake interview to get a job at L & T, the petitioner along with other accused obtained a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed to dismiss this petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that this is a case of job racking. Totally, four accused involved in this case. He would submit that this petitioner is arrayed as A3 and he along with other accused collected huge amount from the defacto complainant and thereafter failed to keep up their promise and thus cheated the complainant. He would submit that so far 20 victims were affected and a sum of Rs.50 lakhs were swindled by the accused by giving false assurance of securing job at L & T. He would submit that if he is released on bail, there is possibility of hampering investigation and tampering witnesses and huge amount is involved and co-accused was

granted bail only on statutory bail. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and considering the fact that he has been falsely impersonating him and given false assurance of getting job at L & T company, since he was staff of L & T company and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.12.2022 rpp T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 08.12.2022