Hariharan v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 27/07/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.CHANDRASEKHARAN 1.Hariharan 2.Reegan ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 & 2 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Inspector of Police, Manavalakurichi Police Station, Kanyakumari District in Crime No.56 of 2021. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.R.MANOHARAN, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.M.MUTHUMANIKKAM, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C., PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.56 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.1 and 2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(2) of I.P.C., in Crime No.56 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is a B.E., graduate in Mechanical Engineering. He was a I.T.Engineer in H.D.F.C.Limited in Tiruvananthapuram. The second accused got introduced to the de-facto complainant through one Jestalison. The second accused informed the de-facto complainant on 27.11.2019 that a post of Assistant Manager is vacant in Postal Bank and this post 1/3
offers Rs.36,000/- per month as salary. Even without any examination, he said that he can make arrangement for getting the job through the first accused. The first accused contacted the defacto complainant through second accused phone and told him to pay Rs.6,00,000/- for getting this post. On the said promise, the defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in the first accused's Bank Account No.20354428626. Thereafter, he did not get employment. In spite of several requests made to the accused, they have not made arrangement for getting the job or return of the money. Therefore, this case has been registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners are engaged in business and the de-facto complainant is relative to the second petitioner and there was some monetary transaction. Using the monetary transaction, this case has been falsely registered against the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent opposed this petition on the ground that this is a case of job rocketing in which the de-facto complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, on the promise of getting employment. He would further submit that the investigation is not completed and the amount is not recovered.
5. This is a case of job rocketing in which the de-facto complainant was made to pay a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- in the account of the first accused by both the accused, on the promise of getting the job of Assistant Manager in Postal Bank. The investigation is in the preliminary stage and the amount is not recovered. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 27/07/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
2/3
TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANAVALAKURICHI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.
2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.6060 of 2021 Date :27/07/2021 SA/VR/SAR.4/30.07.2021/3P/3C 3/3