Rahul Ganesh v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Eighth day of March Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice P.N.PRAKASH CRL OP(MD) No.3225 of 2016 RAHUL GANESH ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.5 Vs THE STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. (CRIME NO. 23 OF 2015) ... RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.B.JAMEEL ARASU, Advocate For Respondent : M/S.A.P.BALASUBRAMANI, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehended arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(b) I.P.C., in Crime No.23 of 2015, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. Heard Mr.B.Jameel Arasu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / fifth accused and Mr.A.P.Balasubramani, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State.
3. This is the fifth anticipatory bail application. It is seen that the de facto complainant wanted transfer of job and therefore the petitioner / fifth accused introduced him to one Sadurudeen and together they all went to Chennai and paid money to one Padma, who is said to be an influential person in the Chief Minister's Office, and she promised them that she will arrange transfer of job within a period of one week. After receiving huge sums of money from the de facto complainant, transfer of job, as promised by Padma, was not effected and on her instructions the de facto complainant brought his relative for getting Government job, from whom a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- appears to have been received by Padma. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / fifth accused has submitted that the petitioner's mother has even
mortgaged her property with the de facto complainant, under a Mortgage Deed, dated on 10.11.2014, and registered as document No.1345 of 2014.
5. On reading of the said Mortgage Deed, it is seen that it relates to some other money transaction between the de facto complainant and one Tamilselvi and it is not related to the present case. Even if that be so, that cannot be a good reason for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner / fifth accused, who took part in a large conspiracy and cheated the poor people by claiming proximity to the Chief Minister's Office.
6. In the result, the criminal original petition fails and it is dismissed.
sd/- 08/03/2016 / 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 DISTRICT. 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI RL/3C/NGM/SS/SARI/11/3/2016
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.3225 of 2016 Date :08/03/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/