Natarajan v. Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.49 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.06.2023 at about 09.30 a.m., the defacto complainant / Gnanaprakasam of Arni, has lodged a complaint before the respondent police alleging that the petitioner and along with other accused, in the guise of exchanging 2000 Rupee currency notes, has approached the defacto complainant and promising that if you give Rs.25 lakh of 500 Rupee currency notes they will give Rs.50 lakh, double the times of 2000 Rupee currency notes. Based on such promise, the defacto complainant has arranged a sum of Rs.25 lakh from various sources and handed over the same to the petitioner and thereafter, he was cheated by the accused. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner has no bad antecedent and he has nothing to do with the case. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there are ten previous cases pending against the petitioner similar in nature. He would further submit that there are totally twelve accused in this case in which the petitioner is arrayed as A1 and insofar seven accused were arrested and five accused are absconding and connected cases are also pending in respect of the very same doubling of amount, after commencement of withdrawal of 2000 Rupee currency notes by the Central Government. He would further submit that this matter is under investigation and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much needed in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the intervenor and learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

6. Considering the nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and the case is on preliminary stage and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is having ten previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

08.08.2023 ata

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.

ata 08.08.2023