Panneer Selvam v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Seventh day of January Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.23872 of 2015 PANNEER SELVAM ... PETITIONER/SOLE ACCUSED Vs STATE REP. BY 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

(IN CR.NO. 532 OF 2015) ...1st RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT 2 PALANIKUMAR ... 2nd RESPONDENT /DE-FACTO COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.A.JAYARAMACHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.ANBARASAN Govt. 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 sole accused, in Crime No.532 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.There is no representation for the petitioner.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the name of the defacto complainant is Palanikumar and he is arrayed as the second respondent. It is alleged in the complaint that the defacto complainant along with Kaleeswaran and Saroja gave a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioner on promising of getting job of Assistant Cook and Waterman post in the Government Adi-Dravidar Welfare Hostel. The petitioner did not arrange any job for them and he never returned the money. When they demanded money, the petitioner abused them with filthy language and threatened them with dire consequences.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as CooK in the Government Adi-Drividar Welfare Hostel and he never received any amount from the defacto complainant or any other persons and he is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.

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

5.The learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) submitted that on promising of getting job, the defacto complainant received Rs.1,80,000/- and he did not arrange any job and he did not return the amount and cheated the defacto complainant and others. When the same was demanded, the petitioner threatened them with dire consequences and investigation is pending.

6. On consideration of facts, it is seen that it is a case of job racketing and it has to be ascertain whether the petitioner is involved in any other similar cases.

7.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the charge leveled against the petitioner is that he cheated the defacto complainant on promising of getting job and received money and investigation is pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 07/01/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VEERAPANDI POLICE STATION, THENI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.23872 of 2015 Date :07/01/2016 CM NS/NGM-SS/SAR II/12.01.2016 : 2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/