Geethapriya v. The State Rep By Its,
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of IPC in Crime No.22 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant is running a business under the name and style of S.E. Consultancy and Service. During the course of business, he supplied the materials worth about Rs.3,15,85,506/- to M/s. Confident Engineering India Private Ltd., on various days in the year 2023, for which the said Company had issued various cheques for payment of supply of materials, but the said cheques were dis-honored. Further, the de-facto complainant demanded the petitioner to return of his money and she refused to return the money. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent person and she has not committed any such offence as 1/4
alleged by the prosecution. He would also submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and she will abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that investigation is not completed and it need detailed investigation. He further submitted that the amount involved is more than 3 crores and the petitioner was paid only Rs.40,00,000/-. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and the amount involved is more than 3 Crores and the investigation is not yet completed, it needs detailed investigation. At this stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 2/4
29.04.2024 kv 3/4
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
kv 29.04.2024 4/4