K.Saravanan v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC in Cr.No.484 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner with his father and relatives have received a sum of Rs.2,94,21,500/- with the false promise that they will execute a sale deed in favour of the defacto complainant for the property situated at Athipattu Village to an extent of 6.82 acres. 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 would submit that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner and the allegations are only against his father. He would further submit that A1, A2 and A3 were arrested and released on bail. Hence prays for grant of

anticipatory bail.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

anu 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that petitioner has received a sum of Rs.2,94,21,500/- from the defacto complainant and promised him that he would execute a sale deed in his favour and cheated him. He would submit that the case is under investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the allegation levelled against the petitioner and that the case is under investigation, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07.12.2022 anu