Murali v. State Rep By Its

Crl.O.P.No.20748 of 2023 C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.81 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The defacto complainant had purchased a Maruti car bearing registration number TN-10-BD-1879 in the year 2011 for a total value of Rs.10,00,008/-. The petitioner herein had approached the defacto complainant agreeing to take the car on lease. It is contended that he had been paid lease amount and did not return back the car. There is a dispute whether the car had been returned back to the defacto complainant or not. It is under these circumstances that the complaint was given by the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the car had been returned to the defacto complainant, which statement is denied by the learned counsel for the defacto complainant. 1/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

smv 4.It is contended that the petitioner is prepared to return back the amount, but the issue really is about the car and its location. It is also seen that even before the respondent police, the petitioner herein had given an undertaking letter that, he would return back the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, but even that had not been done. 5.In view of these facts, since the car had not yet been returned back and there is no proof that it had been actually returned back, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 04.10.2023 smv Crl.O.P.No.20748 of 2023 2/2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis