IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.09.2021 CORAM THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Crl.O.P.No.25123 of 2016 Primo Automation System (P) Ltd., Rep. By P.Rajagopalan, Managing Director .. Petitioner / Defacto Complainant Vs.

1.State rep.by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai – 600 116. .. Respondent-1 / Complainant

2.Sukash Chandrasekhar alais Balaji .. Respondent-2 / Accused Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C, to call for records in Crl.M.P.No.2357 of 2016 and set aside the bail granted on 30.08.2016 in result remand the 2^nd respondent / Accused and commit him to custody.

For Petitioner .. Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna For R1 .. Mr.E.Raj Thilak, Govt. Advocate (Criminal Side)

For R2 .. Mr.P.Shiva for M/s.Ojas Law Firm

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to cancel the bail granted to the 2^nd respondent who is an accused in Crime No.122 of 2013 registered by the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of IPC r/w Section 66 (d) of the Information Technologies (Amendment) Act, 2008.

2.The grievance of the present petitioner / de-facto complainant is that not only was the de-facto complainant the only victim of the nefarious activities of the 2^nd respondent, but the 2^nd respondent is also the accused in a string of other cases. It is also stated by Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner herein that bail had been granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, in the teeth of an order of a learned Single Judge of this Court, who by a detailed order, had actually directed that the 2^nd respondent herein should necessarily appear before the Investigation Officer and should co-operate during the course of the investigation. Grant of bail was never contemplated by the learned Single Judge.

3.To enter into the facts, in a more detailed manner, the 2^nd respondent as aforesaid, quite apart from the various cases in which he had been charged had also found himself in the wrong end of a complaint given by the petitioner and registered as First Information Report in Crime No.122 of 2013 by the 1^st respondent police under Sections 406, 419 and 420 of IPC r/w Section 66 (d) of the Information Technologies (Amendment) Act, 2008.

4.The petitioner herein claims that he had been the victim of an elaborate fraud committed by the 2^nd respondent whereby, the 2^nd respondent projected himself as a Karnataka State Government Servant and extracted money from the petitioner herein promising to obtain grant of a tender. He had also gained the confidence of various victims by promising that he would be able to obtain loan from the Government in aid of their business activities.

5.It is pointed out by Mr.K.P.Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, that originally the 2^nd respondent was arrested on 09.01.2014 and was however released on the very next day, 10.01.2014. Though it was claimed by the 2^nd respondent that he was not able to satisfy the conditions of the bail owing to the fact that he felt sick, that particular explanation did not cut ice with the learned Single Judge who cancelled the bail and directed the 2^nd respondent to report before the Investigating Officer. Subsequently, the 2^nd respondent was again arrested on 29.04.2016. Thereafter, he moved an application seeking bail under Section 167 of C.P.C., normally called as default bail and was also granted bail. That order came into forceful scrutiny by the learned Single Judge of this Court who observed that the petitioner had not been arrested during the course of investigation, but rather his bail had been cancelled by the High Court, and if ever any such order is to be revisited, it was the prerogative of the High Court to examine that particular issue and that the petitioner could not have been granted bail. Therefore, the bail was again cancelled by an elaborate order dated 13.07.2016 in Crl.O.P.No.11867 of 2016.

6.The 2n