Shanmugam v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 17/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN

1. Shanmugam

2. Sakthivel ... Petitioners/Accused No.3&4 Vs The State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy City.

(Crime No.685/2021).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : M/s.Illanchezhian V, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.SS.Madhavan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr No.685/2021 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who are arrayed as A3 and A4 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 120(B), 417, 420 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.685 of 2021, seek anticipatory bail 2.The case of the prosecution is that promising to secure a Government Job, A1 who is the personal Assistant to the Ex.Minister received Rs.6.50 lakhs and received Rs.1 lakhs as advance. A2 and A3 gave assurance that A1 will arrange the Government job. So on that score, on 02.05.2018, the defacto complainant paid to A1 in the 1/3

presence of other accused. Later they produced forged appointment order and demanded remaining amount also on 05.09.2018. In 2018, they issued two cheques and those cheques were dishonoured. When the amount was demanded back they were criminally intimated. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent person and they have been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that this is the second anticipatory bail petition. Earlier petition filed by the petitioners in Crl.O.P(MD) No.12530 of 2021, considering the gravity of the offence, this Court dismissed the petition. Now the present petition has been filed on the ground that after lapse of 9 months no steps have been made to secure the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police submitted the petitioners gave assurance that A1 will arrange the Government Job and also they issued a false appointment order. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and the circumstance fo this case and also the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is essential, so the petitioners are not entitled to the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstance. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 17/11/2022 / TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TTA TO

1. The Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy City.

2/3

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20348 of 2022 Date :17/11/2022 RD/BUC/SAR-I(28/11/2022) 3P 3C 3/3