look news india
Individual freedom and equality before law have been given paramount importance in the Indian judicial system. In this context, Madras High Court has made an important and strict comment and reprimanded the Tamil Nadu Police. The court completely rejected the approach of opposing the bail of an accused in a fraud case merely on the ground that the accused is a ‘North Indian’ and the police suspect that he may abscond from the state. The High Court bluntly said that the place of original residence of any person cannot be the basis for assuming that he will run away from the law.
Madras High Court rejected the police’s argument
The case is from Chennai, where a bail application related to a fraud case was being heard in the Madras High Court. During the hearing, Justice N. Ramesh strongly objected to the argument of the police and the prosecution that the accused was likely to flee the state since he was from North India.
The court adopted a strict stance and made it clear that there should be no such regional or prejudiced statements in the affidavits filed by police officers in the court. Underlining the importance of fair investigation and individual rights within the ambit of law, the court granted bail to accused Ankur Kumar Jani with some necessary conditions and directed him to cooperate with the investigating officer if needed.
What is the whole matter and controversy
This entire legal dispute is related to an agreement between the reputed coaching institute FIITJEE Limited and Coimbatore-based Suguna PIP School to provide coaching to the students for Joint Entrance Examination (JEE) and National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET). As per the terms of this agreement, the guardian of each student enrolling in the course had to deposit a refundable caution deposit of Rs 1 lakh.
According to the complaint, the concerned institutions did not return this refundable money despite making promises and conducting the courses. After this, on the complaint of a parent, a case of cheating was registered against Dinesh Kumar Goyal of FIITJEE and Lakshmi Narayanasamy of the school. The name of Ankur Kumar Jani, who had applied for bail during the police investigation, was not included in the original complaint or the initial FIR.
Why did the police make him an accused?
According to police records, Ankur Kumar Jani was dragged into the case and made an accused only because he had signed a commercial agreement with the school on behalf of FIITJEE on 26 February 2011. Police alleged that all of them together defrauded 262 parents and embezzled about Rs 2.62 crore. However, the main accused in this case is said to be absconding, while the other accused have already been granted anticipatory bail. After this tough stance of the High Court, the police administration has received strict advice to improve its working style and avoid such baseless arguments.