Issac v. The Inspector Of Police

BBEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth day of February Two Thousand Nineteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.16230 of 2018 ISSAC ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ARUMANAI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.136/2018 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.F.DEEPAK Advocate For Respondent : MR. K.SUYAMBULINGA BHARATHI, Government Advocate(Crl. Side) For Intervener : MR.H.ELANGO, Advocate IN CRL MP(MD) No.

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 16230 of 2018 PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 506 (i), 406, 420 of IPC r/w. Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002, in Crime No.136 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner is a pastor. The defacto complainant used to visit the petitioner for customary prayer. Due to the relationship, the petitioner induced the defacto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to one Vinu Christopher for securing a job in Railway. Thereafter, they neither repaid the amount nor secured a job for the defacto complainant. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a pastor and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. In fact the entire amount was paid to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Vinu Christopher and he cheated the defacto complainant, for which the petitioner is not responsible and prays for anticipatory bail. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener submitted that he regularly went to the petitioner's church for prayer and in view of such relationship, he induced the defacto complainant to pay a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to secure a job in Railway. The defacto complainant did not secure a job in Railway and prays for dismissal of this petition.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the State submitted that the defacto complainant did not secure a job till date and the amount was not transferred in favour of the defacto complainant.

6.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is a pastor and he induced the defacto complainant to secure a job in Railway by illegally. Hence, considering the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 26/02/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ARUMANAI POLICE STATION, KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

+1. CC to MR.F.DEEPAK Advocate SR.No.50001

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16230 of 2018 Date :26/02/2019 MSI/PN/SAR 1/08.03.2019/2P-4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/