P.Thangaraj v. The Sub Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 21/09/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN P.Thangaraj ... Petitioner / Sole Accused Vs State represented by The Sub-Inspector of Police, Town North Police Station, Dindigul District. in Crime No.589 of 2023. ... Respondent / Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.L.Prabhu, 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.589 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.589 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the accused promised to secure job, received Rs.3 Lakhs, later they failed and refused to return the money. When he enquired about his failure there was no proper reply. On the basis of the complaint, a case has been registered.

¶3Seeking anticipatory bail, this petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that he has not received any amount from the defacto complainant. The earlier complaint that was given by the defacto complainant, came to be closed after proper enquiy.

¶4But reading of the complaint, prima facie shows that the petitioner received Rs.3 Lakhs on promise that he would secure job. The earlier complaint that was given by the petitioner before the Thadikombu police station was transferred to DCB, Dindigul, on the point of jurisdiction. The contention on the part of the petitioner is that the complaint given before the Thadikombu police station was closed after enquiry, is not correct on records. It is further seen that when summon sought to be served upon the petitioner, he refused to receive the summon. Since serious allegation has been made, absolutely no reason to entertain this petition. The petitioner has to undergo custodial interrogation to bring out the truth. The offence of such nature cannot be taken lightly.

¶5Perusal of CD file further shows that this petitioner alleged to have executed an undertaking letter in favour of the defacto complainant stating that he received Rs.3 Lakhs in the presence of witnesses namely Nagaraj, Subbiah, Murugesan and Kannaiah, promising to secure job for the defacto complainant's son. If any failure is noticed, then he is ready to return the amount also. When the documents was shown to the learned counsel for the petitioner, he submitted that the above said document was not executed by him. The petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

¶6Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

sd/-

21/09/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/10/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. )

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023. PNN TO THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TOWN NORTH POLICE STATION, DINDIGUL DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,

MADURAI. +1 CC to M/s.P.PRABHU, Advocate ( SR-13948[I] dated 21/09/2023 ) ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.17048 of 2023 Date :21/09/2023 SS/DD/13/10/2023/4P/4C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023