The Madras High Court has refused to grant bail to a man who had received the fee by claiming himself to be an Advocate.
A Single Bench of Justice KK Ramakrishnan passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by S Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar.
The appellant, who is the sole accused in Crime on the file of the 2nd respondent police filed this appeal challenging the dismissal order of his bail petition dated 10.08.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.959 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under SC/ST(POA) Act, Theni.
The de facto complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community and he is doing Coolie work. There was a land dispute between the defacto complainant and one Eswaran and Murugesan and the same was pending on the file of the Sub Judge, Theni.
The appellant introduced himself as an advocate and a Press Reporter and he assured to complete the case within a period of two months.
On the said false representation the defacto complainant entrusted his case to him. The appellant also received a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- towards advocate fee. But he did not appear before the Court and hence, the said suit was decreed ex parte.
After knowing the above fact, the defacto complainant requested him to repay the said fee. But the appellant did not make any repayment, instead, the appellant criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by using his caste name.
Therefore, the defacto complainant suffered mental depression and took treatment and then, he filed the complaint before the respondent police.
The respondent police registered the case for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 294(b), 506(i) IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
Thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 10.07.2023 and he was in judicial custody. He filed a bail petition before the trial Judge. The trial Judge dismissed the same on 10.08.2023 stating that the petitioner has four previous cases with similar allegations of cheating and he used to fleece money from the poor people introducing himself as a media person and RTI activist. Challenging the same, the appellant filed this criminal appeal.
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant surrendered as per the order of the Court and he was confined in prison for nearly 50 days. He disputed the allegation made in the FIR and also the allegation made in the previous cases. Therefore, he seeks for bail.
The counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently opposed the bail petition stating that the appellant with the moniker S Rajasekar @ “Satta Rajasekar”, cheated a number of people by introducing himself as an advocate and Press Reporter. He received a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- from the defacto complainant to contest the case by stating that he is an advocate, but he had not even filed vakalat and did not appear before the Court and hence, the said suit was decreed as ex parte.
In all fairness, he is bound to repay the said fee on the bonafide request made by the defacto complainant. But he did not repay the amount and criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by using his caste name. The said act of the appellant deserves no sympathy in spite of the incarceration for nearly 50 days.
He further expressed his apprehension of tampering of the witnesses. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
The Government Advocate reiterated the above submission made by the counsel for the defacto complainant and specifically submitted that the appellant cheated the public as if he completed the law degree by displaying the Board as “Advocate” running office as “Law Foundation” and also opened his account in the social media and cheated the public.
The appellant also has a number of previous cases of similar nature. In the said circumstances, there is a serious threat to the witnesses. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
“Admittedly, the appellant is not an advocate. He is alleged to have received a sum of Rs 3,00,000/- from the defacto complainant as a legal fee to contest the case pending on the file of Sub Court, Theni and he did not appear before the Court and hence, the case ended in exparte order being passed.
Therefore, the defacto complainant made a request to repay the amount. But the appellant, without making the payment, criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by using his caste name. Abusing the de facto complainant’s caste name in the public place is a serious offence. He received the fee by claiming himself to be an Advocate is another serious offence. His act of refusal to repay the fee is also a serious consequential offence. From the inception knowing that he is not an advocate, he got the brief along with legal fee from the poor defacto complainant with deceptive intention and not appeared before the Court which resulted in exparte decree.
He further made a threat to the defacto complainant without making the repayment by using his caste name is another grave offence. He not only cheated the defacto complainant, but he continuously indulged in such activities against others also.
From the above circumstances, a period of incarceration is not a ground to grant bail in the case”, the Court observed while dismissing the appeal.