A. Ramesh v. The State Of T.Nadu Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.

The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.24 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was in the business of renting out the Tractor-cum-Trailor and in that process the petitioner and other accused in this case, has entered into agreement with the defacto complainant and taken the Tractor-cum-Trailors for rent and in that transaction, have paid only Rs.50,000/- and four vehicles out of Rs.81,000/- and seven vehicles. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the main accused in this case named Mahadevan requested the petitioner to introduce the tractor owners for the purpose of hiring tractor vehicle for his business. The petitioner had introduced the defacto complainant to the main accused in this case and thereafter the defacto complainant's tractor owners and the main accused Mr.Mahadevan voluntarily entered into various agreements pertaining 1/4

to the hiring of the tractor vehicles. The petitioner introduced only one person to the main accused who owned a tractor for the said purpose, whereas the other tractors owners got introduced by themselves and involved in the transaction of hiring the vehicles with the main accused. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that the petitioner had played active role in this matter and that three Trailors and Rs.31,000/- are yet to be recovered from the accused. He further submitted that investigation is under progress and hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. After hearing the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), I find that A1 and A2 have entered into an agreement with the defacto complainant 2/4

for supply of Tractor-cum-Trailor for rent on the advance amount of Rs.50,000/- and after completion of the job, they have to pay Rs.31,000/-. However, after ploughing the agricultural field, after the lease period, they have not returned the Tractor and after registration of the complaint, out of seven tractor-cum-trailor and 3 trailors are yet to be recovered. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the offence and that the matter is under investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 11.08.2023 ars 3/4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.

ars 11.08.2023 4/4