Rajeswari v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.11991 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 10/10/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN CRL OP(MD). No.11991 of 2022 and Crl.M.P(MD) No.8115 of 2022 Rajeswari ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Trichy City.

Crime.No.16 of 2022.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s. Arunraj.K, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : No Appearance PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.16 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 468, 471, 294(b) and 506(i) of I.P.C, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused had received money from the defacto complainant and his friends assuring that they will be arranged a Post Graduate Teacher Job in Government Department. On believing their words, the defacto complainant and his friends have making payment on various dates to the tune of Rs.11,51,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, the accused could not arrange the job to them and also cheated them. Hence, the complaint.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.11991 of 2022 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the entire transaction between the second accused and the defacto complainant. The petitioner is an innocent person and she did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, she may be granted anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that it is a clear case of job racketing and the petitioner and the second accused are relatives and they had received a sum of Rs.11,51,000/- from the de-facto complainant. He would further submit that investigation is not yet completed and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary in this case. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence and also the quantum of amount involved in the case and that the investigation is pending and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary as stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- 10/10/2022 / TRUE COPY / /10/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, TRICHY CITY.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11991 of 2022 Date :10/10/2022 cp USK/SBN/SAR-II/19.10.2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2