Kalaiyappan @ Kumar Kaliappa v. The Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The Petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 406 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.108 of 2023 on the file of the Respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the A1 viz., M.Sridhar, is the supplier of medical equipments and proprietor of M.S.Associates and the Defacto Complainant are running a chain of pharmaceutical stores and medical equipment stores and thereby, they have arrived an agreement between them. In furtherance of the said agreement, A1 had received Rs.4.5 crores on various dates from the Defacto Complainant for supplying the medical equipment and subsequently, A1 neither supplied the goods nor repaid the said amount and swindled the money from the Defacto Complainant. Hence the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the Petitioner is not shown as Accused in this case and he borrowed money from the Accused viz., Sridher. He has received notice from the Respondent/Police. 1/ 4

In connection with the notice, the Petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the Respondent/ Police. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the Respondent based upon the complaint given by the Defacto Complainant would submit that A1, who is the proprietor of M.S.Associates has received Rs.4.5 crores for supplying the medical equipment and he has neither supplied the goods nor repaid the amount. A1 was arrested. During the investigation, he has given confession statement that he had given Rs.2.7 crores to A2 and hence notice was issued to A2 under Section 41(A) Cr.P.C. to appear before the Respondent. However, he refused to appear, instead of notice being served on him. Hence, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioners. 5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Taking into consideration the facts and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either sides and the nature and gravity of the offence and the fact that the investigation is at the preliminary stage, this Court is not 2/ 4

inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed.

07.08.2023 sai 3/ 4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

sai 07.08.2023 4/ 4