Jeyakannan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the First day of September Two Thousand Fifteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM CRL OP(MD) No.15882 of 2015 JEYAKANNAN ... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED No.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUPUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, ARUPUKKOTTAI, VIRUDHAGAR DISTRICT.

CRIME NO. 663 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.EDDY EMBOOS LAW Advocate For Respondent : M/S.S.Prabha Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. in Crime No.663 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.According to the defacto complainant, the accused by giving promise to get appointment in Paralymbic Committee, received Rs.1,00,000/-, but he failed to arrange the employment. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the petitioner is the one of the victim for the fraud committed by the first accused.

He further submitted that the father of this petitioner namely Thangaraj had paid a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the first accused to get appointment in Paralymbic Committee and for non-arrangement of appointment, his father gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar District against the first accused on 10.06.2015, which is forwarded to the respondent police and the same is under investigation and long after the complaint, the present complaint was given on 11.08.2015 against the petitioner.

4.It is further submitted that even as per the complaint, the defacto complainant has paid the entire amount to the first accused on the basis of the representation made by the first accused and the petitioner has only introduced the de-facto complainant to the first accused. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the complaint given by the father of the petitioner is under investigation and the petitioner has no bad antecedents.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6.Considering the above facts, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, with certain conditions. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Aruppukkottai and on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m., until further orders. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Scrupulously.

7.It is made clear that the first accused shall not take advantage of the order passed in favour of the second accused since he is the main accused in this case.

8.The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 01/09/2015 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ARUPPUKOTTAI.

2 DO THRO THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SRIVILLIPUTHUR. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUPUKKOTTAI TOWN POLICE STATION, ARUPUKKOTTAI, VIRUDHAGAR DISTRICT. +1. CC to M/S.EDDY EMBOOS LAW Advocate SR.No.50621. TS/03.09.2015/2P - 6C MPA-AAL/SAR -I ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15882 of 2015 Date :01/09/2015 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/