Janani v. The Inspector of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/11/2023 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice V. SIVAGNANAM Janani

... Petitioner/Accused No.1

Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Dcb), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District. (Crime No.16/2023). ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Indrachithu,

Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.R.M.S.Sethuraman,

Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 16 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent Police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A1, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 417,420,465,468,471 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.16 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons assured to get job in Canada demanded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-for which the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on various dates and when the accused persons demanded balance amount from the defacto complainant he belated the payment for which the A2 and A3 refused to give the original passport and visa to the defacto complainant, hence the case.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and a false case has been foisted against him. He would further submit that A2 and A3 are the proprietors of the company and the petitioner is only working in the said company and he is no way connected with the alleged transaction. Hence he seeks anticipatory to the petitioner.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that accused persons assured to get job in Canada demanded a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-for which the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on various dates and when the accused persons demanded balance amount from the defacto complainant he belated the payment for which the A2 and A3 refused to give the original passport and visa to the defacto complainant. Further the petitioner herein also received some amount from the defacto complainant, hence he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶5It is a case of job racketing. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the gravity of offence and also the fact that the petitioner herein has also received the amount, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶6Hence the petition stands dismissed.

sd/-

22/11/2023

/ TRUE COPY /

/12/2023

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S. )

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai - 625 023. aav TO

¶1The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch (Dcb), Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District.

¶2The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.20957 of 2023 Date :22/11/2023 RK/DD (01/12/2023) 4P / 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023