R. PRABAKARAN Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to cancel the anticipatory bail granted in Crl. OP. No. 23415 of 2019 dated 30.08.2019 in Cr. No. 317 of 2019.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents 1 to 6 have cheated the petitioners to the tune of Rs. 57,10,000/- on the false assurance for arrangement of VISA for 52 persons to send them to Malaysia for job. Thereafter, they did not take any step to provide any VISA to the victims and also they refused to return back their amount which were given to the accused persons. Then, the respondents 1 to 6 approached this court by way of anticipatory bail in Crl. OP. No. 23415 of 2019. This court by order dated 13.08.2019 was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to all the respondents 1 to 6 herein on condition that the respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- jointly within a period of four weeks to the credit of Cr. No. 317 of 2019. He further submitted that the respondents 1 to 6, after execution of sureties, the respondents 1 and 2 failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- as directed by this court. Therefore, they did not comply all the conditions imposed by this court and sought for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to them.

(3.) The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 7th respondent has submitted that on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, an FIR in Cr. No. 317 of 2019 has been registered as against the sixth accused, in which, the respondents 1 to 6 are arrayed as A1 to A6 for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC and Sections 20 and 24 of Immigration Act and Sections 10 and 24 of Immigration Act, 1983. While granting anticipatory bail to them, this court has imposed conditions that the respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit a sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- to the credit of Cr. No. 317 of 2019. Though they executed sureties and comply other conditions, the accused 1 and 2 namely respondents 1 and 2, failed to comply the conditions imposed by this court. Though notice was served to the respondents 1 to 6 and their names were printed in the cause-list, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents 1 to 6 before this court by person or through pleader.