Pushparaju v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420 r/w Section 34 IPC in Cr.No.15 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused was running a fabric company, to which the defacto complainant supplied yarn to a tune of Rs.1,18,41,000/-. However, till date the petitioner company neither paid the money for the purchased yarn nor returned the product. Hence, the case.

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. He submitted that the petitioner is only a partner and he has nothing to do with the business transactions. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the petitioner along with other accused was running a fabric company, to which the defacto complainant supplied yarn to a tune of Rs.1,18,41,000/-. However, till date the petitioner company neither paid the money for the purchased yarn nor returned the product. He would further submit that sofar nine complaints have been received against the alleged company and the case requires a detailed investigation, if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper the evidence. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this case requires a detailed investigation.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.12.2022 anu

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

anu 22.12.2022