U. Jayakumar v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 19/12/2019 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.R.SWAMINATHAN U.Jayakumar ... Petitioner/Accused No.3 Vs State through The Inspector of Police, Thallakulam, (Cr.) Police Station, Madurai District.

(In Crime No.1924/2019).

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.R.Yamuna, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No. 1924/2019 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent.

2.The petitioner is in custody since 24.11.2019, for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.1924 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police. Hence, he seeks bail. 3.The petitioner's counsel states that the main accused in this case is one Sekar and that the police are conveniently sparing him. She produced materials to indicate that she had already moved this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.863 of 2015 and even though a direction was given on 17.03.2015, no action has been taken. The petitioner's counsel also pointed that the petitioner had remitted substantial amount in the bank account of Sekar. She claimed that the petitioner is the victim of circumstances and that he has been falsely 1/3

implicated. When the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) pointed out that a similar case was registered in Crime No.186 of 2015 on the file of D.2.Perungudi Police Station, Madurai, she submitted that the said case has been closed as a mistake of fact. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions. 6.I must at the out set express my surprise that even though the name of Sekar is prominently figuring in this case, he has not been added as an accused and no steps have been taken to secure him. Another strange feature in this case is that even though one Basker has been specifically named by the defacto complainant, he is sought to be deleted from the list of accused based on the confession of the petitioner herein. I can understand an accused being exonerated on the strength of subsequent statements of the victim or witnesses but to grant him the benefit of deletion from the list of accused based on the statement recorded from the co-accused is a far fetched proposition.

7.In the FIR, the defacto complainant had clearly and categorically held that he first came in touch with the petitioner herein and based on his assurance that he would secure him public employment, he parted with a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. He had also mentioned the name of few other victims.

8.It is true that Crime No.186 of 2015 registered on the file D2.Perungudi Police Station was closed as mistake of fact. I called for the relevant particulars from the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side). The defacto complainant in the said case is one Thangaraj. The petitioner herein namely., Jeyakumar is figuring as the sole accused in the said case. The allegation of the defacto complainant/Thangaraj is that the petitioner herein promised that he would obtain employment as a teacher in a Government School and received a sum of Rs.11,50,000/-. The case was registered on 10.06.2015. But then, it was closed as mistake of fact on 18.12.2016 by the Police. I went through the contents of the final report.

The only reason given by the investigating officer is that the defacto complainant ought not have attempted to secure public employment by bribery. Since the defacto complainant in the said case has received a cheque from the petitioner herein, it is always open to the defacto complainant/Thangaraj to file a private complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The investigating officer had faulted the defacto complainant for attempting to secure public employment through shortcut methods. On that ground the case was closed as mistake of fact. I can only express my utter shock and surprise over the final report filed by the investigating officer in Crime No.186 of 2015 on the file of D2.Perungudi Police Station. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.

to bring this to the attention of the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Madurai, for taking further action in the matter. 9.Since the investigation in Crime No.1924 of 2019, on the file of Thallakulam Crime Police Station is also not satisfactory, the same is transferred to City Crime Branch, Madurai City. It shall be personally monitored by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madurai.

10.Since there are sufficient prima facie materials against the petitioner herein and since it is a case of job racketing and the main accused is still not arrested, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the criminal original petition stands dismissed.

11.The petitioner's counsel states that the petitioner is seriously ill. The prison authority is directed to provide appropriate treatment to the petitioner.

sd/- 19/12/2019 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.III) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO

1. THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE No.II, MADURAI.

2. DO-THROUGH THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MADURAI DISTRICT.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MADURAI.

4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, MADURAI.

5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALLAKULAM, (CR.) POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT.

6. THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, CITY CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY.

7. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.19008 of 2019 Date :19/12/2019 IAS TE/VR/SAR-III : 0301/2020 : 3P/8C 3/3