Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1625
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
G. Ganesan – Appellants
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Job-Racket Wing Team, Central Crime Branch, Chennai – Respondents
Crl.O.P. No. 20165 of 2020 in C.C. No. 3627 of 2017
Decided on : 23-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :S. Prabakaran, Senior Counsel, G. Mohanakrishnan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A.L. Somayaji, Special Senior Counsel for Government Asst. by M. Mohamed Muzammil, Government Advocate
The court concludes that further custody of the petitioner is unnecessary and grants bail with certain conditions.
Headnote:
IPC - Sections 406, 420, 419, 34, 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420, 201; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 109; Cr.P.C - Section 41
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks bail in a case involving offenses under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner claims to have been implicated due to political influence and argues that custodial interrogation is no longer necessary.
Finding of the Court:
The court examines the materials and finds that there were no allegations made against the petitioner in the original complaint or subsequent investigation. The court also notes that the main accused, who was a government minister, has already been granted anticipatory bail. Considering these factors, the court concludes that further custody of the petitioner is unnecessary.
Ratio Decidendi: The court grants bail to the petitioner with certain conditions, including the execution of a bond and reporting to the Special Court for trial.
Result: The bail granted to the petitioner will be cancelled if any of the conditions are not complied with.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in C.C.No.3627 of 2017 pending on the file of CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore, Chennai.)
(The case has been heard through video conference)
1. The petitioner, who was arrested on 20.11.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 419, read with 34 IPC and then under sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 201 IPC Section 7, 12, 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and altered into 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 420 & 201 IPC and Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 in Cr.No.441 of 2015 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. This petition has been filed for grant of bail on the ground that the petitioner/accused has been in custody for more than 42 days and the custodial interrogation is also over, hence it is the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that A1 was already granted Anticipatory Bail in this case and the petitioner has been implicated by political influence and there is no reference whatsoever as to the petitioner. Similarly charge sheet has been filed pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Initially, there was no allegation made against this petitioner. Only after further investigation by the time when A1 switched over to another political party, further investigation started and this petitioner was summoned by investigation officer on several times by issuing notice under Section 41A. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested on 11.11.2020. In order to take vengeance against A1, who has switched over to another political party, this petitioner being Government servant has been roped in unnecessarily. At any event his custodial interrogation is over. Hence prayed for bail.
3. The learned Special Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Government submitted that it is a clear case of job racket and the petitioner being the Managing Director in Metropolitan Transport Corporation has invited the applications for filling up the 1670 jobs and almost 12750 applications were introduced and 7750 applications were found eligible and the entire list was prepared by the petitioner/accused at the instance of A1. It is further submitted that search at 17 premises has been conducted and incriminating materials were seized from the accused, the same clearly indicate that there is a clear case of job racketing. His further contention is that Sections have been altered under the prevention of Corruption Act and also IPC offences under sections 406, 420, 419, read with 34 IPC and then under sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 and 201 IPC Section 7, 12, 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and altered into 120 (B), 465, 468, 471, 420 & 201 IPC and Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and 109 IPC read with 13 (2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Hence prayed for dismissal of this petition.
4. Perused the materials. The law is said to have set into motion on the basis of the information provided by Devasagayam. Originally crime was registered under Section 420 IPC and FIR was registered in Crime No.441 of 2015 on 29.10.2015. In the entire FIR there is no allegation whatsoever made against this petitioner. Thereafter another complaint was also lodged on 07.03.2016 and pursuant to the above complaint a direction was issued by this Court in Criminal O.P.No.7503 of 2016 wherein a direction was issued to Assistant Commissioner of Police Central Crime Branch to take over the investigation i
