A.Rajamanickam v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.Nos.18264 & 18270 of 2023 RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.456 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were induced the defacto complainant and made him to invest in their business and thereafter, cheated him. Hence the case.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the petitioners along with other accused obtained money from the defacto complainant and thereafter, cheated him. RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

Page No.1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

vkr He would further submit that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the entire materials available on record.

6.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. 25.08.2023 vkr Crl.O.P.Nos.18264 & 18270 of 2023 Page No.2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis