M.Selvaraj v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Ninth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3678 of 2021 1 M.SELVARAJ [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] 2 ISMAIL Vs STATE REP.BY [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

(CRIME.NO.82/2020) For Petitioner : M/S.B.MOHAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.T. SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN, Govt. Advocate ( Criminal Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.82 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners have created forged jewels and cheated the defacto complainant's bank to the tune of about Rs.6,19,29,200/- Hence, the complaint was registered.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submits that it is a case of cheating and the petitioners have created forged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

jewels and cheated the defacto complainant's bank to the tune of Rs.6,19,29,200/- He would further submit that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the fact that large amount of money is involved and it relates to cheating the bank to the tune of several crores using fake jewellry and also taking into consideration the fact that investigation is still going on, enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail at this point of time, when the offence is serious in nature and there is likelihood of the petitioners indulging in activities which would be prejudicial for investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 29/04/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO

1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ERODE SOUTH POLICE STATION, ERODE DISTRICT.

2. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT MADRAS CC to M/S.B.MOHAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.3678/2021 Date :29/04/2021 SP(25/06/2021) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/