Logaraj v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 30/11/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.16655 of 2021

1. Logaraj

2. Prakash ... Petitioners/Accused No.1 and 2 Vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

(Crime No.577/2021).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: M/s.S.Krishnan S, Advocate.

For Respondent : M/s.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime.No.577 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused No.1&2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.577 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons had promised the defacto complainant to secure job for him and his sister-in-law and for that he has to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs. As directed by the petitioners, the defacto complainant had also deposited Rupees Ten Lakhs in the bank accounts of the petitioners on various dates. Thereafter, the petitioners neither arranged the job, nor returned the amount. Hence, the complaint. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent; they have not committed

any offence as alleged by the prosecution and it is a pure loan transactions between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Hence, he seek for grant of anticipatory bail for the petitioners. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused persons had promised to secure a Government job and received Rupees Ten Lakhs and more particularly, the first accused had received Rupees Two Lakhs and the second accused had received Rupees Eight Lakhs, out of which, Rupees One Lakh and Fifty Thousand has been returned by the petitioners.

5.It is a case of job racketing. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the petitioners are attempting to convert the job racketing case into a civil dispute. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged and also the facts that the investigation is pending and the quantum of amount involved, as stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Sd/- 30/11/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PNM Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

TO 1.The Inspector of Police, Thuraiyur Police Station, Thuraiyur, Trichy District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.16655 of 2021 Date :30/11/2021 SP/JM/SAR IV/06/12/2021/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/