Arulprakash v. State Rep. By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 34 of IPC in Crime No.27 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.It is the case of the prosecution that the defacto complainant approached one Rahul @ Priyankumar to purchase his property and paid a sum of Rs.29,00,000/- to him and at the time of registration the property is not able to register hence the defacto complainant asked him to repay the money and he postpone the same and he identified another property owned by one Suburaidu and fixed the price for a sum of Rs.67,50,000/- and she paid the amount got registration, later she received legal notice from one Suburaidu stated that he has not conveyed his property to her and on verification the said Rahul colluded with others created document and cheated her. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he is not involved in the said occurrence and he is no way connected with the said offence and on the offence of co-accused the petitioner is implicated. The petitioner state that the respondent police falsely implicated the petitioner in the 1/4

above case. He is innocent and he had nothing to do with the above case. He is ready to offer substantial sureties and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.80,00,000/-. The petitioner herein is the mediator.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and considering the gravity of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the case is at initial stage and it needs detailed investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 28.06.2024 ah 3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

ah 28.06.2024 4/4