Nagajothi, v. The Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Thirty First day of January Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice R.PONGIAPPAN CRL OP(MD) No.17697 of 2017 1 NAGAJOTHI 2 ILAYARAJA 3 MUNIASAMY 4 PAVITHRA 5 SURYA ... PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM.
(CRIME NO.13/2017) ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioners: M/S.R.BABU JEGANATH, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.ROBINSON, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C., in Crime No.13 of 2017, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners, by giving false promise to get job to the de facto complainant's son, have received a sum of Rs.6.50 lakhs. They did not repay the said amount and thereby cheated. When the de facto complainant demanded the money, the petitioners threatened with dire consequences.
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. He further submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and prays for anticipatory bail.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the investigation is completed. 5.The submission made by the learned counsel on either side are considered. It is alleged that during the time of occurrence the petitioners assured to get a job to the de facto complainant's son https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
by receiving Rs.8 lakhs in two instalment. Even now the said amount was not recovered by the investigating agency. According to the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent, as of now, seven complainants were received against the same petitioners for the offence of job-racketing and the investigation in this case is still pending. The custodial interrogation is very much necessary.
6.Taking the above said aspects into consideration and having regard to the nature of offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
sd/- 31/01/2018 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.17697 of 2017 Date :31/01/2018 MS/CM-VR/SAR.2/07.02.2018/2P.3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/