Chandru v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.03.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Chandru ... Petitioner Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, CCB-Team I, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

... Respondent/complainant [Cr. No.22 of 2025] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner / Accused in Crime No.22 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.Sudhagar R.

For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 471, 468, 467, 465, 420, 419, 406 IPC in Crime No.22 of 2025, on the 1/4

file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. (i) It is the case of the prosecution that the first accused approached the defacto complainant, who is the Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Alwarpet Branch, for obtaining credit facility to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- and offered collateral property belonging to A2, A3, A4 and A5; that on the letter received from A5, it was found that the property mortgaged by the first accused was obtained by impersonation and cheated the defacto complainant.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner/A6, who is the friend of A1, was part of the conspiracy and has received Rs.6 lakhs from A1.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an acting driver and not aware of the allegations; that he is sought to be implicated only on the confession of the co-accused; that the alleged transaction took place in the year 2015; and that in any case, 2/4

custodial interrogation is not required for the purpose of investigation and sought for anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioner has two previous cases of similar nature, which are registered in Cr.No.236 of 2022 and Cr.No.126 of 2021.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and the fact that the petitioner has two previous cases of similar nature, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

12.03.2025 ars To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, CCB-Team I, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3/4

SUNDER MOHAN. J., ars 12.03.2025 4/4