Dandapani v. The State Rep By

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 406 & 420 IPC and 21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act and 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.3 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners herein are accused Nos.4 and 5. They are implicated as accused for the reason that they are the parents of third accused. They have no role whatsoever with this Makkal promoters. Accused 2, 3, 6 and 7 have been arrested and released on bail. Apprehending arrest, this petition is filed.

3.In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed this petition and submitted that accused Nos.1 & 2 started Makkal promoters stating that they would provide housing loan for DTCP approved land and if 50 % of the value of the house is paid, house will be registered immediately in the name of the buyer, i.e, if an advance of Rs.50,000/- is paid, building worth Rs.8,00,000/-/11,50,000/-, in two

different categories would be constructed and Central Government's subsidy of Rs.2,60,000/- will also be obtained. Believing their word, on 10.08.2019, at about 10 a.m., defacto complainant visited the office of Makkal promoters for enquiry. He met Manimaran, his wife Suganya, his son Vasu, Suganya's father and mother and 10 other persons. Manimaran and Suganya reiterated the scheme. On the basis of their representation, defacto complainant selected site No.19. Defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-. However, he was not given the site or the monetary aid for the construction of the building. He understood that the accused had cheated 70 members to the tune of Rs.1,17,00,000/-. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that out of the money cheated, three properties had been purchased in the name of the fourth accused and one property was purchased in the name of the fifth accused, who is the second petitioner herein.

4.Considering the specific allegations made against the petitioners that that they had also actively involved in the cheating and purchased properties in their names and that investigation in this case is

not completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail for the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 25.07.2023 sli

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

sli 25.07.2023