M Sathiyamoorthy v. State, Rep. By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamilnadu Protection of Interest depositors (in Financial establishment) Act, 1997, in Crime No.349 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the accused had conducted Diwali chit and gold scheme chits. Believing him, the defacto complainant had invested (Rs.1200 x 12 months = 14,400) and when asked for return of money, the accused had not repaid the amount based on the complaint, a case was registered against him. During the course of investigation, he came to know that the petitioner along with other accused had cheated more than 3000 persons to the tune of Rs.3 crores. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false complaint has been given. He

would also submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed on him. Hence, he would prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused in the guise of running a finance company, had cheated more than 3000 persons to the tune of Rs.3 crores. He would further submit that the petitioner has got seven previous cases against him registered in various police stations. Therefore, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into account the nature of offence and the previous antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.06.2023 jas A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

jas 08.06.2023