Mohan v. The State Rep By Its,
and Crl.M.P.No.9913 of 2023 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 417 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No. 3 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant Srinivasan has lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioners are running a firm in the name and style of M/s. True Life Global Projects at Perambur and they have received a sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from the various persons including the defacto complainant stating that they will provide Sub-dealership to them as BSNL Tower Maintenance work and Diesel Filling work. Thereafter, they failed to provide the Sub-dealership and repaid only Rs.7,10,000/- and thereby cheated them. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that as per the agreement entered into between the petitioners and one Venkadeshvaralu, who is the proprietor of M/s.Ammu Enterprises and M/s. KVR Hills Infra Projects at Tiruppathi and one Babu, who is the proprietor of M/s. Pinakini Enterprises at Thirupathi, the petitioners paid the said amount to the above said firms, which was received from the defacto complainant and others including the petitioners. Thereafter, the above said Venkadesvaralu and Babu have cheated the petitioners and the petitioner had no intention to cheat the defacto complainant and others. He would further submit that the petitioners are ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police would submit that the petitioners, in the guise of providing dealership and tower maintenance work, running a Company
in the name of M/s. True Life Global Projects, have received a sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and others. Thereafter, they neither provide any dealership nor return the money and thereby cheated the defacto complainant and others. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor for the defacto complainant would submit that the petitioners, in order to secure Subdealership to the defacto complainant have received a sum of Rs.71,00,000/- and failed to secure any dealership and refused to return the amount. Hence, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not present. Heard, the learned counsel for the intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioners and also taking note of the fact that the case is under preliminary stage, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed and intervening petition in Crl.M.P.No.9913 of 2023 is allowed. 23.08.2023 ata
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.
ata 23.08.2023