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.10305 of 2011 1 S.SUBBURAJ 2 K.THIRUMAL ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 5 AND 6 Vs STATE REP BY:: THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, IN CRIME NO.2 OF 2011. ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT P. ANANTHA GOPAL ...INTERVENOR For Petitioner : M/S. S.GOKUL RAJ Advocate For Respondent : MR. A. RAMAR, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervenor : Mr. J. BALAGANAGATHARAN, Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/A5 and A6 apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police 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.At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner/A5 has been arrested by the respondent police and hence, he is not pressing the anticipatory bail application in respect of the 1st petitioner/A5 and he has also made an endorsement to that effect. In view of the endorsement made by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st petitioner/A5, this criminal original petition is dismissed in respect of the 1st petitioner/A5. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd petitioner/A6 would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A6 and a false case has been foisted against him and he is also standing in the same footing of the defacto complainant. 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 the petitioner, he has parted with the money to A4 for securing the government job, but the petitioner herein has paid a sum of Rs.16 lakhs to A4 for getting job for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law and he is accompanying A4 to go to Chennai along with the defacto complainant, but he is nothing to do with the commission of offence. He would further submit that he has not received any commission for getting job and he has not committed any offence and on the basis of the search warrant, the investigation https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ agency has seized the document, which shows that A4 has given an undertaking that he is ready to repay the amount, which was received from the petitioner and since he apprehended for arrest, he has come forward with the present application. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A6 and he is a teacher in profession and he has collected Rs.67 lakhs from 16 persons for getting job for 16 persons. He would further submit that against the petitioner, 8 complaints have been received as if he has received Rs.36 lakhs and since the investigation is going on, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 5.The learned counsel appearing for the Intervenor would submit that even though A5 has introduced A6, A6 has shown some documents to show that A4 has given an appointment order and make him to believe that A4 is a competent person to get an appointment from the government and on the basis of the assurance only, he has paid a sum of Rs.5,50,000/- for P.G. Assistant and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for U.G. Assistant and so far he has received nearly Rs.4 Crores from 40 persons. He would further submit that the petitioner abetting for the commission of offence. The complaint has been given on 04.08.2011 and the investigation is in earlier stage and hence, he prayed for the dismissal of the application. 6.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on records. 7.Admittedly, a case has been registered on 04.08.2011. In the complaint, it was stated that the occurrence has been taken place in between February 2010 to April 2010 and the complaint has been given on 04.08.2011 at 10.00 a.m. In the complaint, it was specifically mentioned that when they approached A5, he introduced the petitioner herein and at that time, the petitioner has stated that he got job for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law through A1. On that basis only, he paid that amount. Perusal of the documents would show that the petitioner herein has paid nearly 67 lakhs to A4 for securing job to 16 persons including for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law. 8.It is an admitted fact that the house of the petitioner was searched and some documents have been seized. While perusing the F.I.R., it was stated by the defacto complainant that in the month of Feb 2010, he received an information from A5 and he gone to the house of A5 along with his wife, where A5 was introduced the petitioner herein to him and at that time, A6 has stated that he has approached A1 through A4 for obtaining post of B.T.Assistant for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law and obtained an appointment order and he further stated that he is the relative of one of the Ministers and they fixed a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- for the post of U.G.Assistant and Rs.5,50,000/- for the post of P.G.Assistant and on that basis only, the defacto complainant paid the amount to A4. But, there is no whisper that the petitioner and others have received commission for introducing A1 Nalamvirumbi. In that, he has further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stated that he has also introduced one Senthilkumar to A5 and he also paid the amount to A4 through A5. But, considering the F.I.R., the allegations made against the petitioner are that the defacto complainant has made to believe that after payment of the amount, A1 through A4 received the appointment order for his wife, his sister and sister of his mother-in-law and then only, he accompanying this petitioner along with others. 9.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the petitioner's argument that even though the alleged amount has been paid in the month of February 2010, the defacto complainant has not given the complaint immediately and hence, there is a delay in preferring the complaint. Furthermore, A4 has returned the money by way of cheque, which was returned as insufficient fund. Furthermore, in the month of June, A4 has given a letter stating that he has received a sum of Rs.66 lakhs from the petitioner. 10.Considering the same, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to get anticipatory bail with certain conditions. 11.Accordingly, the petitioner/A6 is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Virudhunagar and 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that the petitioner shall report before the Court concerned daily morning at 10.30 a.m. until further orders and shall appear before the respondent police, on receipt of summons for interrogation. The petitioner shall comply with the condition stipulated under Section 438 Cr.P.C. scrupulously. 12. The petitioner shall appear before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, within a period of 15 days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed. sd/- 15/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1 THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO.II, VIRUDHUNAGAR 2 DO THRO' THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE VIRUDHUNAGAR AT SIRIVLLIPUTHUR 3 THE ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT MADURAI 4 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE C.B.C.I.D., VIRUDHUNAGAR, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT, 1. CC to M/S. S.GOKUL RAJ Advocate SR.No.31525: DM::2011:SEPTEMBER:15:: ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.10305 of 2011 3P:6C:: Date :15/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/