Baranidharan v. State Rep.By

Crl.O.P.Nos.587, 642 & 777 of 2023 Crl.O.P.Nos.587, 642 & 777 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 & 120B of IPC, in Crime No.276 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as a Manager in New Bharath Steel Company and the petitioners alleged to have obtained a sum of Rs.1,28,76,377/- from the defacto complainant and not supplied the materials, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there is no response from the petitioners. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.O.P.Nos.587, 642 & 777 of 2023 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

gbi

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the defacto complainant is working as a Manager in New Bharath Steel Company and the petitioners alleged to have obtained a sum of Rs.1,28,76,377/- from the defacto complainant and not supplied the materials, when the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, there is no response from the petitioners.

5. Taking into consideration the allegations and also the fact that the case is in crucial stage of the investigation and that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. gbi 01.02.2023 Crl.O.P.Nos.587, 642 & 777 of 2023 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis