Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/15156/2017dismissed

P.V. Parthasarathy v. The Inspector Of Police

2017-11-30Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Thirtieth day of November Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.15156 of 2017 1 P.V.PARTHASARATHY 2 ESWARAN 3 R.ARULSELVI 4 MURUGAN ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED Vs STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI -625 002.

CR NO. 2022/2017. RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioners : M/S.S.RADHAKRISHNAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.K.ANBARASAN Government Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(ii) of I.P.C., in Crime No.2022 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the first petitioner and second petitioner are the employees of the TamilNadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited. The third petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner. The fourth petitioner received a sum of Rs.

12,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and others, in order to get job from the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, thereby, they prepared a forged employment order and they are not able to get a job from the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited. Hence, the defacto complainant filed a complaint before the respondent police. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.However, he fairly conceded that only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was received by the first petitioner and the second petitioner did not receive any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.

amount from the defacto complainant. Accordingly, they pray for anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the State submitted that all the amounts were transferred through bank to the petitioners. Totally, a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- were received from the defacto complainant. The petitioners have made a false promise in order to get job from the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited, however, they received huge money from the defacto complainant.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), since the matter relates job racketing, considering the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 30/11/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,TALLAKULAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI -625 002.

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

GJM/RR/SAR-I-12.12.2017-2P-3C

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.15156 of 2017 Date :30/11/2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/