Ashik @ Ashik Irfan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI ASHIK @ ASHIK IRFAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

CR.NO.28/2024 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner :

M/S.S.ANANTHA MURUGAN, Advocate For Respondent :

MR.B.NAMBISELVAN, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :

FOR BAIL IN CRIME NO. 28/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- (*)The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 11.01.2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 370(4) and 370A(2) of IPC and 10 & 24 of Emigration Act, 1983, in Crime No.28 of 2024, seeks bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that in the year 2022, the petitioner issued an advertisement for getting job at Malaysia as salesman. Believing the same, the defacto complainant contacted one Periyasamy. Then A1 to A3 conducted interview and demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Thereafter, they issued the job order to the defacto complainant at one Super Market in Malaysia and received Rs.1,00,000/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went along with A1 to Malaysia. On reaching Malaysia, A1 sold the defacto complainant to one Massage Centre, where, she was forced to work as sexual worker. Thereafter, she escaped from Malaysia with the help of one unknown person and came to India, via., Thailand. Hence, the defacto complainant made a complaint before the Law Enforcing Agency. Hence, this complaint. 3.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner did not conduct any interview and did not receive any money from the victims. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that that the petitioner conspired with the other accused, cheated the innocent victim girls and sold them in Malaysia for prostitution and also cheated a sum of Rs.19,00,000/- from 5 other victims. Hence, he vehemently, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 15/02/2024 (*) AMENDED AS PER THE ORDER OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL OP(MD)No.2364 of 2024 dated 07/03/2024.

/ TRUE COPY / 11/03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

dss TO TO BE SUBSTITUTED WITH THE ORDER DATED 15/02/2024 ALREADY DESPATCHED 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

3/4

2 THE SUPERINTEDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI DISTRICT. 3 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1 CC to M/s.S.M.A.JINNAH, Advocate ( SR-3016[I] dated 11/03/2024 )

ORDER

IN Date :15/02/2024 RS/JGB/SAR-(20.02.2024) 4P 4C INDU SS/SAR- /11/03/2024/4P/5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4