Saravanan v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 11.10.2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble MR JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM 1.Saravanan 2.Umais Ahamed ... Petitioners/Accused 20&21 Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Virudhunagar.

(Crime No.2 of 2023) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners : Mr.T.Lenin Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.2 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 24.08.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 465 of IPC r/w Section 67 of the Information Technology Act in Crime No.2 of 2023, seek bail. 1/4

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a contractor. When he was searching online job for his wife, one Swapna contacted him through telegram and one Shreya demonstrated that she is having part time job opportunities and she will pay Rs.5,000/-, if the aspirant is ready to do work for 4 to 5 hours. When the complainant asked about the nature of part time job, she told that the aspirants have to give reviews to 30 movies and the aspirants will be paid Rs.800/- to Rs.4,000/- after they given reviews. Accordingly, the complainant reviewed to 30 movies, for which, a sum of Rs.700/- was credited in his account on 07.02.2023. Likewise, a sum of Rs.13,000/- was credited in the complainant's account for the subsequent reviews.

At this juncture, Shreya made the complainant to believe that if he pays money, he will be given premium tickets and if the complainant reviews movies under premium ticket, he will be given money 5 times more than the actual commission. As such, the complainant paid money on various occasions to the tune of Rs.8,51,570/- in the account given by the said Shreya. Thereafter, when the complainant attempted to visit the website, to his shock and surprise, the website address was changed from Imagine Entertainment to Amblin Entertainment. When the complainant contacted the said Shreya, she insisted the complainant to pay Rs.8,00,000/- in addition to the said amount. Thereafter, only the complainant came to know that it is an online fraud and no such company is there. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he seeks bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that as of now, the respondent police received 96 complaints and more than a Crores of amount involved in this case. He would further submit that the respondent police expected many complaints from the depositors. Therefore, he strongly objected to grant bail to the petitioners. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the records. 6.Considering the seriousness of the offence and considering the fact that as of now, the respondent police received 96 complaints, this Court is not inclined to grant bail. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. sd/- 11/10/2023 / TRUE COPY / /11/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

3/4

gns TO 1.The Officer in charge, Sub Jail, Virudhunagar.

2. The The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime, Virudhunagar.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.18200 of 2023 Date :11/10/2023 RK/VR(20/11/2023) 4P / 4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4