Ravi v. The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP(MD). No.17363 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/11/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice K.MURALI SHANKAR CRL OP(MD). No.17363 of 2021 Ravi ... Petitioner/Accused 1 Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Amathur Police Station, Virudhunagar District.
Crime No.233 of 2017. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.P.Veerapandi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.RMS.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :-For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.233 of 2017 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 offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No.233 of 2017, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant has been looking for employment for the past six years, at that time the second accused informed that he would get a job abroad for a higher salary and introduced this petitioner to the defacto complainant, that the petitioner informed that he had a job in Tanzania Country and he was paid Rs.1,50,000/- per month and he would further said that if the petitioner send him to work, he would have to pay Rupees four lakhs and they entered into an agreement in a bond of Rs.20/-. The defacto complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in the petitioner's account on 13.04.2017 then the work permit visa is sent to the defacto complainant and after that he deposited Rs.1,50,000/-on 15.04.2017, Rs.43,000/- on 17.04.2017 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2
CRL OP(MD). No.17363 of 2021 and Rs.20,000/-on 20.04.2017, in the petitioner's account. Then flight tickets were sent to the defacto complainant and others. They left for Tanzania Country viz Mumbai Airport at 4AM on 24.04.2017. After that, they didn't get a job there, they contacted their parents and came to their village. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent; he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and in order to extract money from him, this case has been falsely foisted against him. There is no direct contact between the petitioner and the defacto complainant. Hence, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner has committed the offence of job racketing, that the investigation is not yet completed and that the petitioner is having two cases of similar nature.
5.It is a case of job racketing. Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence alleged and the quantum of amount involved and also the facts that the investigation is pending and that the petitioner is having two cases of similar nature, as stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 25/11/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
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 AMATHUR POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT. 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17363 of 2021 Date :25/11/2021 PNM MK/VR/SAR.IV/30.11.2021/2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2