N.Ayub v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR N.Ayub .. Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nilgiris, Nilgiris District.

(Crime No.08 of 2023) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, in the event of his arrest, in Crime No.08 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nilgiris, Nilgiris District. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Sugumar For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 4

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code in Crime No.08 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant purchased a Bolero Car with registration No. TN03 J 4509 from M/s.Naha Finance and paid EMI of Rs.20,500/- for three months and thereafter, he could not pay the agreed EMI and thereafter, petitioner has approached him and offered to purchased the said car for Rs.4,50,000/- and also paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance and after that, petitioner failed to pay the balance sale consideration. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case and due to money dispute, false complaint has been given by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Page No.2 of 4

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is A1 in this case. A2 has already been arrested and he is in prison. He further submitted that, on the same modus operandi, petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant and others to the tune of Rs.56,95,000/-. He further submitted that, investigation is at preliminary stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. Considering the gravity of the offence and the magnitude of the amount cheated by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 16.07.2025 cda Page No.3 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cda/sma To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nilgiris, Nilgiris District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Page No.4 of 4