Selvam v. State Of Tamil Nadu

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b) and 420 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, in Crime No.4 of 2021, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Suganthan, is that the petitioner had advertised in Youtube that he is running a Company in the name of Fabbcut Technology (E-Tailor) and had offered to give materials such as System, Plotter Machine Tablet, Software etc. and received a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- from the defacto complainant and cheated him. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated as an accused in this case. He would further submit it is a case of financial transaction which has been falsely projected as a case of cheating. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner, in the guise of agreements entered into the name of M/s.Fabbcut Technology (E-Tailor), had received a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- and cheated the defacto complainant. During the course of investigation it came to the light that the petitioner in similar manner has received money from 446 persons to the tune of Rs.50 crores and cheated them. He would further submit that earlier the petitioner's son, who is also a founder of the Company, had approached this Court seeking for anticipatory bail and on the undertaking given by him that he would settle the entire amount, anticipatory bail was granted to him.

Thereafter, he had failed to settle the amount as per the undertaking and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to check the bonafide and recover the amount and settle the amount to the defacto complainant and at the time, it was found that the entire representations made by the accused were false and no amount has been settled thereby this Court has cancelled the anticipatory bail which has been granted to the son of the petitioner. Further, this Court by an order dated 06.06.

in Crl.O.P.No.25830 of 2021 had directed the respondent police to proceed as against the son of the petitioner and other accused in accordance with law. Hence, he opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner had projected this case as a commercial transaction and have cheated several persons to the tune of more than Rs.50 crores. Hence, he opposed to grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Taking into consideration the facts of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. 29.11.2022 ata

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

ata 29.11.2022