M.Pandiyan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30/06/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP(MD). No.12011 of 2023 M.Pandiyan ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Trichy District.

(In Crime No.18 of 2022).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Dinesh For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/accused No.3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506(i) of I.P.C in Crime No.18 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the the petitioner is the father of A.1. The first accused is a student of the defacto complainant and he has stated that he is having highly influenced person in the Government Department and with the help of them, he will get Government job within 6 months, for which, he demanded a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and she had paid a sum of Rs.22,00,000/-. However, the first accused, without getting the Government job to the defacto complainant, further demanded a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. After knowing the fraudulent act of A.1, the defacto complainant went to the petitioner's house and asked the petitioner to repay the said amount. At that time, A.1 had threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences and abused her in filthy language. Hence, the complaint. 3.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

4.There are totally three accused, in which the petitioner is arraigned as A.3. It is a case of job racketing. The petitioner along with other accused had collected a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- from the defacto complainant in order to get a Government job and thereafter, they failed to get any job and refused to return the amount. Therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required in this case. This is the third anticipatory bail application and the earlier applications for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P(MD)Nos.17765 of 2022 and 18979 of 2022 were dismissed by this Court on 06.10.2022 and 14.03.2022.

5.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration that there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) payable to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench. sd/- 30/06/2023 / TRUE COPY / /07/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION, TRICHY DISTRICT 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI COPY TO:

THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, LEGAL SERVICES AUTHORITY, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.12011 of 2023 Date :30/06/2023 MGJ(07.07.2023) 2P 4C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis