Pazhani @ Jeya Palani v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 31.03.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD)No.6136 of 2023 P.Pazhani @ Jeya Palani ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

(Crime No.19 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.I.Pinaygash For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.19 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.30 Lakhs to the accused persons, in order to get job for his son in mil producers society. However, the accused persons failed to get job and also refused to return the money. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged prosecution. Even as per FIR, the petitioner did not receive any money and A1 A2 and A4 only received money and as such, he sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner herein has specific overt act and hence, he objected for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the record.

4.It is seen that no one was arrested till date. All the accused persons are working in Aavin under various posts. The petitioner is working as Junior Executive Officer in Aavin. He along with other accused persons, assured the defacto complainant to get a job for his son and received Rs.30 Lakhs. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.

sd/- 31/03/2023 / TRUE COPY / /04/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

gns TO 1.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.6136 of 2023 Date :31/03/2023 SS/MMS/SAR II/17/04/2023/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis