Peer Mohamed Abdullah v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Peer Mohamed Abdullah S/o. Shaik Madharsha ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

The State represented byThe Inspector of Police, CCW Chennai Police Station, Chennai District.

[Cr. No.313 of 2025].

... Respondent 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 Cr. No.313 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

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

O R D E R

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/4

respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of B.N.S. in connection with the case in Cr. No.313 of 2025 pending on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that the defacto complainant had downloaded a fake trading App and he was induced to transfer Rs.90,77,800/- to different beneficiary current accounts; that later she found that she was cheated and hence she lodged a complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has nothing to do with the defacto complainant; that the allegations against him are false; that he is running a fish stall and on account of his business, there were some credits and debits made in his account and those transactions are not related to the alleged offences; and that in any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioner's 2/4

account was opened in March 2024 and within a span of 7 months, Rs.6.02 crores was credited and Rs.5.95 crores was debited; that there are number of transactions; and that unless the petitioner is taken into custody, the respondent police will not be able to unearth the truth and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required for the purpose of investigation.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

02.04.2025 mjs To

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 2.The Inspector of Police, CCW Chennai Police Station, Chennai District. 3/4

SUNDER MOHAN., J.

mjs 02.04.2025 4/4