1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Criminal Jurisdiction) Thursday, the Fifteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice R.MALA CRL OP(MD) No.10878 of 2011 1 P.KUMARESAN 2 SUBBURAJ :PETITIONER / ACCUSED -Vs- THE STATE REP. BY THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBCID.,VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.(CRIME NO.2 OF 2011):RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT P.ANANTHA GOPAL :INTERVENOR (MP(MD)1/2011) For Petitioner : M/S.R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate For Respondent : THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. For Intervenor : MR.R.R.KANNAN, Advocate. PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. ORDER:The Court Made the following order:- The petitioners are arrayed as A4 and A5 and they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the alleged offence punishable under sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 I.P.C. in Crime No.2 of 2011 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A4 and A5 and a false case has been foisted against them. He would further submit that the defacto complainant has given a complaint against 6 persons as if on the basis of the assurance given by A6, the defacto complainant has parted with the money to A4 for securing the government job and the allegation against the petitioners are that they introduced A1 and A2 to the defacto complainant for getting job. He would further submit that A1 received Rs.10 lakhs and cheated the defacto complainant and A2 is the brother of A4 and A2 is working as P.A. Under A1 and the interrogation is over and the investigation has been over and hence they have come forward with the present application for enlarging them on bail. 3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners are arrayed as A4 and A5 and A4 has collected a sum of Rs.52,40,000/- from 11 persons for getting job for 11 persons and A5 has collected a sum of Rs.28,50,000/- from 6 persons for getting job for 6 persons. He would further submit that against the petitioners, totally 17 complaints have been received as if they have received Rs.70,90,000/- and since the investigation is going on, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit that A5, who is his relative, called him and introduced him to A6 and A6 has shown some documents to make him to believe that he has obtained government job for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law, after paying amount to A1 through A4 and on the basis only, the defacto complainant has paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- each for the post of P.G.Assistant and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- each for the post of U.G.Assistant and A1 has received Rs.4 crores for nearly 40 persons and hence, the petitioners abetting the commission of offence. He would further submit that the defacto complainant herein has paid the amount to the 1st petitioner/A4 and he also given a cheque, which was dishonoured as insufficient fund and since the investigation is going on, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 5.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 6.As per the averments in the F.I.R., the alleged occurrence has been taken place in between February 2010 to April 2010 and a case has been registered on 04.08.2011 stating that on the basis of the introduction made by A5/2nd petitioner and A6 made him to believe that if he pay the amount to A1 through A4, he will obtain the order of appointment. In pursuance of that, the defacto complainant accompanying A5 and A6 paid the amount to A1 through A4. In the complaint, it was specifically mentioned that he also introduced one Senthilkumar to A5 and the said Senthilkumar has also paid a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- to A1 through A4, which shows that the defacto complainant has also introduced some persons for securing job. Considering the said averment, I am of the opinion that A5, A6 and the defacto complainant are standing in the same footing. Furthermore, A5 was arrested and interrogation is over and hence, I am inclined to grant bail to A5/2n petitioner herein/ 7.Accordingly, the 2nd petitioner/A5 is ordered to be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No:II, Virudhunagar, and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the court concerned daily at 10.30 a.m. until further orders. 8.As far as the 1st petitioner/A4 is concerned, he is the person who received money on behalf of A1 and he is non other than the brother of A2, who is working as P.A. Under A1 and after the receipt of the amount, no appointment order has been issued and on the demand made by the defacto complainant, A4 had issued cheques, which were dishonoured as insufficient fund. In such circumstances, I am of the view that prima facie case against the 1st petitioner/A4 has been made out and if he is enlarged on bail, he will tamper the witnesses and abscond from the jurisdiction and hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1st petitioner/A4 and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner/A4. sd/- 15/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO: 1.The Judicial Magistrate No:II, Virudhungar. 2.-Do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar @ Srivilliputhur. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Madurai. 5.The Sub Inspector of Police, CBCID, Virudhunagar District. +1CC to M/S.R.SENTHILKUMAR Advocate SR.No.31530. +1CC TO MR.R.R.KANNAN, ADVOCATE. SR.NO.31619. RP/16.09.2011/2P/8C. ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10878 of 2011 Date :15/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/