C.Ramesh Kumar v. The Sub Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22.06.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9091 & 9527 of 2023 C.Ramesh Kumar ... Petitioner/1st Accused in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9091 of 2023 S.Anvar ... Petitioner/2nd Respondent in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.9527 of 2023 Vs The State through The Inspector of Police, C-5, Karimedu Police Station(Crime), Madurai city Cr.No.467 of 2023 ... Respondent/Complainant in both Crl.O.Ps.
For Petitioners : Mr.Thalaimutharasu, Advocate (In both Crl.O.Ps.) for M/S.Mahesh Kumaravel R.M.,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, (In both Crl.O.Ps.) Additional Public Prosecutor For Intervenor : Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, Advocate (In both Crl.O.Ps.) PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.467 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.
COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following common order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 IPC in Crime No.467 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- to A1 and A2 for getting Teacher job in TELC Schools. However, they failed to secure any job and also refused to return the money. Hence the case.
1/3
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the defacto complainant initially lodged a complaint before the respondent police. On receipt of the same, the petitioners were issued summon and during enquiry, the petitioners returned Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the defacto complainant again lodged another complaint before the Assistant Commissioner, Thideer Nagar Zone, Madurai Corporation. On receipt of the complaint, again petitioners were called for enquiry. Now, third complaint was lodged before the respondent police and the same was registered in Cr.No.467 of 2023. The petitioners are ready and willing to deposit amount as imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant would submit that so far the petitioners received RS.22,00,000/- and no amount has been repaid. They also issued fake appointment order as PG Assistant Teacher.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners so far collected Rs.3 Crores from 25 victims and handed over the same to the Bishop Martin, in order to get job in TELC Schools. Number of Schools and Colleges are running by TELC all over Tamilnadu and for all the Schools, there is one Bishop, namely Martin. In fact, A1 lodged complaint as against the said Bishop and the same was registered in Cr.No.2 of 2023.
6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the record.
7.It is seen that all the accused persons colluded together and received huge amount from the victims and thereafter failed to secure job. Therefore, their custodial interrogation is very much required in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these criminal original petitions are dismissed.
sd/- 22/06/2023 / TRUE COPY / /07/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
gns TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, C-5, KARIMEDU POLICE STATION(CRIME), MADURAI CITY.
2/3
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
+1 CC to M/s.MAHABOOB ATHIFF, Advocate (SR-9397[I] dated 22/06/2023 )
ORDER
IN Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.9091 & Date :22/06/2023 RK/DD (14/07/2023) 3P/4C 3/3