Mohammed Dawood Khan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Thirteenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mrs Justice T.V. THAMILSELVI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.23417 of 2021 MOHAMMED DAWOOD KHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENTS ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KHADAK POLICE STATION, PUNE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA 411002.

2 STATE REP BY THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, KANATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

CRIME NO. 0423 OF 2021 For Petitioner : M/S.D.NANDAKUMAR Advocate For Respondents : MR.A.GOKULAKRISHNAN, ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR For Intervenor : M/S G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 120-B and 34 IPC, in Crime No.0423 of 20201 on the file of the respondent seeks anticipatory bail.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is doing business in the name and style of "Coperble Financial Service LLP" and also working as a Financial Consultant at "Riche Realters Pvt Ltd". It is alleged that the the defacto complainant approached the the petitioner and the other accused and they handed over the cheque of 3 Crores in the name of R.K.Business to the petitioner for 6 months interest to the proposed loan of Rs.62,50,00,000/- and thereafter the they cheated the defacto complainant by not arranging the loan as promised. Hence, the complaint.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner name is V.M.Mohammad Daud Khand and it is wrongly cited as Satish Shriram @ V.M.Mohammad Daud Khand @ Chandrashekhar Satwik and he is no way connected with the alleged offence. Hence, he seeks for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the intervenor submits that more than Rs.3,00,00,000/- was involved and also alleged that the petitioner was involved in creating fake currency notes. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner has three unique names and also submits that more than Rs.3,00,00,000/- was involved and the investigation is at initial stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the alleged transactions between the parties are needed for the detailed investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

-sd/- 13/12/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KHADAK POLICE STATION, PUNE DISTRICT, MAHARASHTRA 411002.

2 THE OFFICER IN-CHARGE, KANATHUR POLICE STATION, CHENNAI.

3 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.D.NANDAKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CC to M/S.G.V.SRIDHARAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges Sr.14648 CRL OP.23417/2021 Date :13/12/2021 RVR 22/12/2021