28 Oct 2023 6:30 AM GMT
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who had misrepresented himself as being a lawyer and cheated a client, the complainant. Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal preferred by the man against conviction by a Special Court by observing that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society. The case against the appellant...
The Madras High Court recently refused to grant bail to a man who had misrepresented himself as being a lawyer and cheated a client, the complainant.
Justice KK Ramakrishnan dismissed the appeal preferred by the man against conviction by a Special Court by observing that the special judge had rightly denied bail in the interest of society.
The case against the appellant Rajasekharan was that he had introduced himself as an advocate and a Press Reporter to the de facto complainant and assured him to complete his land dispute case within a period of two months. Rajasekharan had also received a sum of Rs. 3 lakh towards the advocate fee. However, since he did not appear in the court, the suit was decreed exparte.
The defacto complainant had informed the court that when he had requested Rajasekharan to repay the amount, he criminally intimidated the defacto complainant by using his caste name which caused him mental depression and for which he took treatment. Later, the defacto complainant filed a police complaint for offenses under the IPC and the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
The court was also informed that the trial judge had dismissed the bail petition stating that Rajasekaran had four previous cases with similar allegation of cheating and he used to fleece money from the poor people by introducing himself as a media person and an RTI activist.
Rajasekharan disputed the allegations made in the FIR and the allegations made in the previous cases. He submitted that he had surrendered in the case and was confined in the prison for nearly 50 days and thus sought bail.
This was however objected to by the defacto complainant who submitted that Rajasekaran’s conduct did not deserve any sympathy in spite of his period of incarceration.
The court noted that Rajasekaran had committed serious offences by abusing the defacto complainant using a caste name in public places, receiving fees by claiming himself to be an Advocate and refusing to repay the fee already collected.
Relying upon the precedent laid down by the Apex court with respect to considering bail applications, the court opined that the special judge was right in dismissing the bail plea in the interest of society and thus dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.S.Ayyanar Prem Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.R.Sivakumar Government Advocate(Criminal side), Mr. D.Rajaboopathy
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Mad) 331
Case Title: S.Rajasekaran @ Satta Rajasekar v The State
Case No: Crl.A.No.433 of 2018