P.Thangaraj v. The Sub Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/06/2024 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN P.Thangaraj ... Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs The Sub Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District Crime No.589/2023.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.Prithviraj,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.589/2023 on the file of the respondent police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent 1/4

police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.589 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused had promised to secure job for the defacto complainant and received a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs. Later, he failed to do so and refused to return the money. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has not received any amount from the defacto complainant. The earlier complaint that was given by the defacto complainant, came to be closed after proper enquiry. The petitioner has been falsely roped into the case. This is the fourth petition. The earlier three petitions were dismissed by this Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that on considering the gravity of offence, the earlier petitions for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner were dismissed by this Court. There is no change of circumstances in this case. 5.On considering the nature of grave offence, this Court in its earlier order in Crl.O.P(MD) No.17048 of 2023, dated 21.09.2023 has made the following observation:

5. Perusal of CD file further shows that this petitioner alleged to have executed an undertaking letter in favour of the defacto complainant stating that he received Rs.3 Lakhs in the presence of witnesses namely Nagaraj, Subbiah, Murugesan and Kannaiah, promising to secure job for the defacto 2/4

complainant's son. If any failure is noticed, then he is ready to return the amount also. When the documents was shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that the above said document was not executed by him. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary."

6. In view of the above and there is no change in circumstances stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, I find no reason to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/- 07/06/2024 / TRUE COPY / /06/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I /II /III /IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PNM TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT 3/4

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8356 of 2024 Date :07/06/2024 PKP/GS/SAR /21.06.2024/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4