Saravanakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty First day of February Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.1676 of 2019 SARAVANAKUMAR ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED (RANK NOT KNOWN) Vs THE STATE REP.BY, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SERIOUS CRIME INVESTIGATION WING, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT, CRIME NO. NOT KNOWN OF 2019 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT PRADEEP ...PETITIONER/INTERVENOR For Petitioner : Mr.A.KANNAN, Advocate, for M/S.MATHURAM LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.VEERA KATHIRAVAN Senior Counsel for M/S.VEERA ASSOCIATES, Advocate 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 offence under Sections 420, 506(i) IPC r/w Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Cr.No.Not Known of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant approached the petitioner to engage one cine actress and paid Rs.52,20,000/- through bank accounts. However, the petitioner did not act upon agreement and also threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit

that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

4.The learned counsel initially approached this Court and denied all the allegations levelled against the petitioner. This Court issued a direction, on 13.02.2019, to the Law Enforcing Agency to conduct detail investigation and file a report. Thereby on the date of next hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw this petition and the same was objected by the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor. Since earlier occasion, Law Enforcing Agency did not file a report and sought time. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned today. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner filed a memo stating that his client instructed him to withdraw this petition. Accordingly, memo is taken on record.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that though the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case, the investigation was not conducted properly. He would further submit that the petitioner created a group and invited innocent public by showing cine actress. He would also submit that if the petitioner is granted with anticipatory bail, many innocent public will be suffered at the hands of the petitioner.

7.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police file a counter and relevant portion is as follows: 4.It is submitted that investigation discloses that the Saravanan @ Saravanakumar (petitioner herein) threatened Pradeev in the guise of exposing morphed images in the wepsite and to do away with him and his family members, if he did not pay the amount as and when he demanded. The bank account details obtained from the bank officials of Karur Vysya Bank Contonment Branch, Tricy and Karur main Branch, Axis Bank of Eekkattu Thangal Branch, Chennai, State Bank of India, Valasravakkam Branch, Chennai and Axis Bank, Ramanathapuram real that the said Pradeev have transferred money from his father's account to Saravanan @ Saravanakumar, Deepan and Manikandan on various occasions from 21.09.

2018 as threatened by Saravanakumar, The petitioner is absconding to evade arrest by the Police and his co-accused Deepan and Manikandan are also still absconding. Efforts are on to collect their call details Registered and Tower location of their cell phone transactions. Their whereabouts are yet to be known.

5.It is submitted that a special team led by Tr.Ganesalingapandi, Sub-Inspector of Police, Serious

Crime Squad has been formed to locate the whereabouts of the accused of the case. The team visited Coimbatore and made elaborate enquiries on 17.01.2019 & 18.01.2019 to ascertain the address "Door No.4/17, OorGounder Thottam, Madhampatti, Coimbatore" as found in the Aadhaar Card of the petitioner and ascertained that it is his fake address since an elderly women by name Geethamani is risiding there. Her daugher Deepika is maintaining illicit intimacy with the petitioner and she also when enquired did not disclose anything on the whereabouts of the petitioner, though she had been living with him at Coimbatore and Chennai for some years on his promise of offering her a chance as cine actress. Enquiries were also made at A.T.R.Nagar in Saravanampatti P.S limits and Perur P.

S and it was ascertained that the petitioner has obtained Aadhar card by giving fake address of Deepika intentionally to hide his nativity. The team then on information visted Madurai on 22.01.2019, Pudhukottai on 23.01.2019 and Chennai on 25.01.2019 and made elaborate enquiries among the spheres of T.V/Cine aspirants but no useful clue is forthcoming.

The special team is continuing its job to arrest all the accused in the case including the petitioner and the case is under investigation.

6.It is submitted that the petitioner and his colleagues Manikandan and Deepan have received about 60 Lakhs on various occasions by threatening and cheating the complainant Pradeev. The petitioner is absconding to evade apprehension by the Police and has filed this Anticipatory Bail petition to escape himself from the clutches of law.

7.It is submitted that he petitioner has reportedly cheated many persons in similar manner and received sumptuous amounts from them by threat using the electronic media. He is not either a law abiding citizen or having a permanent address. He would adopt similar practice by furnishing bogus nativity certificate and sureties before the Hon'ble Court with a view to obtain anticipatory bail. If he is allowed to go scot free on bail, he would continue his habitual cheating activities and go underground besides steeling the due legal procedure of the Hon'ble Court.

8.Considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, considering the fact that this type of crime has been increased in the recent past through social media, in order to curb the unscrupulous persons, who demanded money by posing the cine actress through Mobile Phones, thereby, lot of innocent persons were caught in the Web and lost their money and also their

prestige, it is necessary to issue a direction to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram District, to monitor the further investigation in this case.

sd/- 21/02/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S-II) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SERIOUS CRIME INVESTIGATION WING, O/O. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT.

2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

COPY TO:

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT +1. CC to M/S.MATHURAM LAW ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.3641 +1. CC to M/S VEERA ASSOCIATES Advocate SR.No.3640

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1676 of 2019 Date :21/02/2019 TK/PN/SAR-2/29.03.2019/4P/6C