Vijay Lakshmnan @ Lakshmanan v. The State Rep By Its

Crl.O.P.No.22140 of 2024 P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Section 420 and 109 of the IPC in Crime No.30 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the A2 who is an Advocate had introduced the petitioner to informant by stating that he will arrange government job. On believing his words, the informant wants to get Government job to his relatives and he had paid totally a sum of Rs.25,00,059/- on various dates from 02.03.2022 to 14.05.2022 to the petitioner's account. Subsequently, the petitioner had not arrange the job, so he returned the money for a sum of Rs.14,85,000/- to the informant in five installment payment. Remaining money for a sum of Rs.10,15,059/- had not returned and cheated the informant. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had returned the entire money received from the informant. After receiving the entire money, the informant made this false 1/3

information report before the respondent police. However, on instructions, the learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that on believing the words of the petitioner that he will arrange government job for the informant's relatives, the informant had paid totally a sum of Rs.25,00,059/- to the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner had not arrange the job, so he returned amount of Rs.14,85,000/- to the informant. Remaining amount for a sum of Rs.10,15,059/- had not returned and cheated the informant and further, considering the gravity of offence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.

Considering the representations made by both sides and considering the nature of offences charged against the petitioner and considering the fact that investigation is in initial stage, this Court is declined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 20.09.2024 nsl 2/3

P.DHANABAL, J.

nsl 20.09.2024 3/3