Saranraj v. The Inspector Of Police

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 of IPC, in Crime No.05 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Ravikanth Lakshman Rao Jarang, Director of the ESCO Global Private Limited, Haryana, is that the accused induced him to supply fresh fruits and vegetables to them and based on that they have supplied fruits to the accused to the tune of Rs. 3 crores and further the accused had started a company in the name of SR Traders and they have cheated him to the tune of Rs.1,46,00,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they are workers and they have been

employed by A1 and A2. In fact A1 and A2 using his name as owner had started a company without his knowledge and they have also cheated the petitioner and thereby he would seek for anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioners colluded with A1 and A2 and they have already cheated the defacto complainant and later the petitioners along with A1 and A2 started the company in the name of SR traders and received goods to the tune of Rs.1,26,30,140.48/-. He further submit that they have cheated the defacto complainant by issuing fake receipts and that from the company of the defacto complainant goods worth about Rs.1,26,00,000/- were supplied. He would further submit that investigation is at nascent stage and hence he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made on both sides and also taking note of the fact that the investigation is at a nascent stage and it is stated that there is every possibility of the petitioners interfering with the investigation and tamper the evidence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20.04.2023 drl

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA. J.

drl 20.04.2023