Ravichandran v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/07/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and Crl.M.P(MD)No.7693 of 2025 Ravichandran S/o.Kannaiah
...Petitioner/
Accused Rank Not Known Vs.
The State of Tamilnadu rep. by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.11 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.G.Karnan Advocate For Respondent : Mr.M.Karunanithi, Government Advocate(Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Kaviarasan Advocate 1/5
PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused promised the defacto complainant to secure a job through TNPSC and received a sum of Rs.35 lakhs from the defacto complainant and thereafter, the accused persons did not obtain any Government job to the defacto complainant and also they refused to settle the amount and cheated him. Hence, a case has been registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he is no way connected to the said alleged offence. He would further submit that the entire transaction amount was only to the second accused's account and he was arrested and released on bail. This petitioner never 2/5
received any amount from the defacto complainant and hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/intervenor submits that the accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant by inducing him to provide a sum of Rs.35 lakhs for securing Government job. He would further submit that the petitioner introduced Accused No.2 and the petitioner had directed the defacto complainant to make account transaction to the second accused and the petitioner got in his hand the balance cash amount of Rs.23,50,000/-. He would further submit that co-accused has already been arrested and released on bail and the said amount has not been recovered so far. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that there are totally two accused in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.1. The accused persons gave a false promise for getting government job to the defacto complainant and received Rs.29 lakhs and cheated him. He would further submit that coaccused was already arrested and released on bail and the said amount has not been recovered so far. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/5
6. Considering the nature of the offence and the specific overt act as against the petitioner and also taking note of the fact that a huge amount is involved in this case and so far the amount has not been recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. sd/- 07/07/2025 / TRUE COPY / /08/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
VSD TO 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thanjavur District.
(Crime No.11 of 2025) 4/5
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to M/s.K.KAVIARASAN, Advocate ( SR-7223[I] dated 08/07/2025 )
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.9575 of 2025 Date :07/07/2025 PR/31.07 .2025 5P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 5/5