M.Dharani @ Dharanikanth v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC and 76(1) of Chit Funds Act in Cr.No.127 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein along with other accused conducted chit and requested the defacto complainant to join in the said chit. Therefore, the defacto complainant participated in the chit. After completion of the payment, the defacto complainant requested the petitioners to settle the amount but they had cheated him. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner and other accused conducted chit and swindled huge amount and cheated the public. He also stated that investigation is pending and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this stage, there will be possibility of abscondance and will hamper the investigation. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the allegation level against the petitioner and the objection raised by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition seeking anticipatory bail is dismissed.

13.12.2022 jai

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

jai 13.12.2022