T.Raghu Raman, v. The Inspector Of Police,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Third day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.13762 of 2016 T.RAGHU RAMAN ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT FOR PETITIONER : M/S K.MALATHI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : Mr.P.KANNITHEVAN, 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, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, in Crime No.722 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 20.02.2015, the petitioner along with other accused persons received a sum of Rs.60,000/- each from Ranjith Kumar and Pavundhoss along with their passport on promising to get a job in abroad and failed to get the job and repay the amount. When the same was demanded by the defacto complainant, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences. On complaint, case has been registered for the offences stated above.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he is working as a Manager of ASMACS Company, Madurai. It is a Corporate Group of Company engaged in various fields and having the Head Office at Mumbai. The accused persons or the de-facto complainant did not approach the petitioner and paid any money to him or submitted any passport as alleged in the complaint. Further, the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons received a sum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of Rs.60,000/- each from Ranjith Kumar and Pavundhoss and their passport on the promise of getting job in abroad, but he failed to do so and did not return the money and thereby, cheated them. This is a case of job racketing. Investigation is pending. If anticipatory bail is granted, he will continue similar offence.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering fact that the petitioner along with other accused persons received money on promising to get a job and did not get the job and repay the amount, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, the criminal original petition is dismissed.

sd/- 03/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MELUR POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

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

+1. CC to M/S K.MALATHI Advocate SR.No. 41960

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13762 of 2016 Date :03/08/2016 SMN2 TE/NGM-MP/SAR-III : 08/08/2016 : 2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/