M.Sundaragopi v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Dated: 09/08/2023 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN M.Sundaragopi ... Petitioner/Accused No.1 Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.
(Crime No.198 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : MR.B.Muneeswaran ,Advocate For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.198 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER: The Court made the following order:- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A1 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 109, 406, 417, 420 and 1/4
506(i) IPC, in Crime No.198 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he was searching for Government job and especially, Village Administrative Officer post. A1 was known to him and he has stated that A2 arranged Government job to various persons and informed that Rs.5,00,000/- is required for the above said post. In view of the above said promise that was made by A1 to arrange job through A2, A2 also informed that she can arrange job. Rs.50,000/- was paid by the petitioner to A2. She also promised to arrange job for his wife. But later, a proposal was made to arrange job for his sister-in-law, for that also, they paid Rs.50,000/-. Totally Rs.1,00,000/- was paid and later, on 04/01/2023, the balance amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was also paid. Similarly, for sister-in-law also paid Rs.
3,50,000/- on 08/01/2023, but later, failed to arrange job. In spite of repeated enquiry, no proper reply was given. Finally, he was also criminally intimidated. Over the above said occurrence, a case in Crime No.198 of 2023 was registered for the offences under sections 109, 406, 417, 420 and 506(i) IPC. 3.
amount was paid to him; Later, the de-facto complainant alleged to have received six promissory notes from A2 for recovery of the amount; Originally, the complaint that was given by the complainant was closed by the respondent after enquiry. 4.Heard both sides.
5.Serious allegation has been made to the effect that the petitioner only introduced the de-facto complainant to A2. Even though, it has been stated that A2 received the money from the de-facto complainant, the involvement of this petitioner also cannot be ruled out.
6.Whether any pecuniary benefit was gained by the petitioner is a matter for investigation. So far, no amount has been recovered and the co-accused was also not enquired. The investigation is in the preliminary stage. So, I find no reason to entertain this petition at this stage. If the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and also hamper the investigating process. 7.In the result, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 10/08/2023 / TRUE COPY / /08/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
3/4
ER TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN POLICE STATION, ARUPPUKOTTAI, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.
THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14244 of 2023 Date :10/08/2023 PKP/VRS/SAR-4 /14.08.2023/ 4P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4