Sornakumar v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 02/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Sornakumar

... Petitioner/3rd Accused

Vs The State, through The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Ramanathapuram District. Crime No.13 of 2022. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi, Additional Public Prosecutor. PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.13 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as A3 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406 and 420 IPC, in Crime No.13 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution, as per the de-facto complainant version is one Prabhu became known to him through his relative and he promised to secure job in TNEB. He demanded Rs.4,00,000/-. He paid Rs.15,000/- as advance. After that, he has also paid several amount on various dates. The entire amount was paid on 22/09/2019. He was taken by A1-Prabhakaran and one Sornakumar to Chennai. They introduced one Albert Franklin. They issued a appointment order. Later, he came to know that the said appointment order is fake and he was cheated. Upon which, he lodged a complaint. Based upon which, the above said case has been registered.

3.During the course of investigation, the involvement of this petitioner has also came to light. On that account, he has also been implicated and seeking anticipatory, this petition has been filed.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that absolutely, he is not involved in the said transaction between A1, A4 and the de-facto complainant. He introduced the de-facto complainant to A1 and A4. Except that, he is not involved in the above said issue.

5.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the de-facto complainant would submit that in the entire issue, this petitioner is also involved and various amount deposited by the defacto complainant in the account of this petitioner on various dates.

6.During the course of investigation, it was found that several innocent persons have been cheated and the total amount involved is Rs.35,00,000/-. The statement prepared by the Investigating Officer shows that Rs.1,15,000/- was deposited in the account of this petitioner. As noted above, the earlier anticipatory bail petition filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.

¶7Considering the gravity of the offence, the involvement of this petitioner in not only receiving the money, but also in issuing the fake order, there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 02/11/2023 / TRUE COPY / /11/2023 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. INDU TO THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMANATHAPURAM DISTRICT. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.19584 of 2023 Date :02/11/2023 PKP/JGB/SAR- /09.11.2023/ 4P/ 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023