G. Saravanan v. Inspector Of Police

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 409, 465, 468, 469, 471 & 420 of IPC, in Crime No. 29 of 2018, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and his family members are maintaining Savings Bank account and Recurring Deposit account in Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank, Arcot Branch and Tiruppur Branch. During Demonitization in the year 2011 to 2014, the 1st accused was working as the Branch Manager of Arcot Branch and when the defacto complainant and his family members deposited the demonitized amount of Rs.58,25,000/- in their accounts at Tiruppur Branch, the 1st accused has wrongly credited the amount to the tune of Rs.1,65,00,000/- into the complainant's account without his knowledge and consent. Thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know about the surreptitious entries in the

accounts of his family members only on receipt of notice from Income Tax Department pointing to the abnormal and astronomical amounts have been transacted by the complainant and his family members. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that A2 to A5 moved quash petitions before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.29447 of 2018 and 2501 of 2019 and the same have been quashed by this Court on 28.07.2022 holding that no loss to the defacto complainant and no allegations against the accused 2 to 5. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would submit that there are totally five accused in this case in which, the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He would further submit that the

petitioner in connivance with the other accused made false entries into the accounts of the defacto complainant and his family members and misappropriated to the tune of Rs.1,65,00,000/- during Demonitization. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances and also taking into consideration the nature and gravity of offence committed by the petitioner and there is specific overt act against the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 08.09.2023 ata

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

ata 08.09.2023