C. Mohan @ Lakshmanan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Fifth day of January Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP(MD) No.727 of 2019 C. MOHAN @ LAKSHMANAN ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED No A-3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY CITY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT, Crime No.01 of 2019 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT SHANMUGASUNDARAM ...INTERVENER/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.C.S.VIJAYAKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) For Intervener :Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU 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 offences punishable under Sections 420, 485, 468, 470, 474, 419, 294-B and 34 of I.P.C, in Crime No.1 of 2019, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is Post Graduate in M.A., M.Ed., and he had written the TNPSC GroupII Examination in the year 2014. During that time, the defacto complainant's wife was studying in the Teacher Training School at Erode and at that time, A-1 was introduced to her. A1 told the defacto complainant that he knew A2 and A3 who are the Assistant Section Officers in the TNPSC Office and the wife of the defacto complainant introduced A1 to her husband defacto complainant. Here after, some conversation was going on between them with regard to geting the Government job in the TNPSC office. They have assured the defacto complainant that the accused would get Government job for him and for 24 persons who are preparing for TNPSC Group https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Examination. A4 and A5 had received the money from the defacto complainant and handed over to the A1 to A3. These 24 persons who are preparing for TNPSC Group Examination and attending coaching centre, have also been targeted by the accused and exploited the situation and extracted money from them.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that apart from the defacto complainant, 53 other students, who are all attending the coaching centre for writing selection examination in TNPSC were targeted by these accused. These students were all first general graduation and using their anxiety and necessity for getting Government Job, they have cheated them. In the meantime, TNPSC has issued appointment order as though issued by the District Collectors have been given by the students and when they approach the concerned authorities for seeking appointment order, they came to know that the forged orders have been created and given by the accused. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent would submit that except A2 and A5, the other accused have been arrested and money has been recovered and investigation is initial stage and circumstantial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 25/01/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY CITY, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT, 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to Mr.B.JAMEEL ARASU Advocate SR.No.1487

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.727 of 2019 Date :25/01/2019 TK/PN/SAR-3/21.02.2019/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/