Latha v. State Rep.By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The Petitioner seek anticipatory bail in Crime No.181 of 2022 registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 34 and 420 IPC on the complaint given by one Murugeshwari, wife of Sakthivel.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant had given money to the Petitioner and others to deposit the same in ELFIN E.Com Pvt. Ltd. The details of such deposits had been given in the FIR and a perusal of the same shows that the defacto complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.43,73,935/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Seventy Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five only) in the first instance and yet another amount of Rs.40,25,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs and Twenty Five Thousand only) and a further amount of Rs.35,60,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) and another amount of Rs.42,30,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Lakhs and Thirty Thousand only) and yet another amount of Rs.29,08,078/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eight Thousand and Seventy Eight only). The list goes on and on in the FIR. It is stated that in that manner totally a sum of Rs.5,80,80,689/- (Rupees Five Crores Eighty Lakhs Eighty Thousand Six 1/4

Hundred and Eighty Nine only) had been paid by the defacto complainant.

3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that FIRs had been registered against the Petitioner at Sivagangai, Trichy and Madurai and the Petitioner had been taken into custody in those FIRs and also had been granted bail. It must be however kept in mind that the investigating officer in this present FIR is the Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Karaikal District, which is the part of the Union Territory of Puducherry and a separate investigating agency, clearly distinguishable and distinct from every investigating agency within the State of Tamil Nadu.

4. The complaints are different and the complainants are different and the amounts are different. The Petitioner is answerable to the allegations and questions can be answered only when the Petitioner appear before the respondent. But the Petitioner can only appear before the respondent, when taken into custody.

2/4

5. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

14.03.2024 mkn2 3/4

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

mkn2 14.03.2024 4/4