R.Saravanan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.1177 of 2023 Crl.O.P.No.1177 of 2023 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 471 read with 34 of IPC, in Crime No.124 of 2015, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners borrowed loan for a sum of Rs.1.92 Crore from the de-facto complainant and not repaid the said amount. Thereafter, the de-facto complainant had issued legal notice to the petitioners and the same was also neglected by them. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioners borrowed loan from the bank in the month of March, 2017. He further submitted that due to COVID-19 pandemic situation, the petitioners incurred heavy loss in their business and could not able to repay the loan amount. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.No.1177 of 2023 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

gbi

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners borrowed loan for a sum of Rs.1.92 Crore from the defacto complainant's bank and not repaid the loan amount. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the gravity of offence, the amount involved in this case, the investigation is at crucial stage, there is possibility of tampering the witnesses, hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. gbi 25.01.2023 Crl.O.P.No.1177 of 2023 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis