Aravinth v. The State Rep. By

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioners/A1 and A2, in Crime No.334 of 2023 registered for the offences under Sections 379, 420 and 506(i) of IPC, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The defacto complainant was abroad and had purchased land and property in Erukkur. It is stated that the petitioners herein had looked after the house. The defacto complainant's wife died on 21.01.2023. After her death, it is alleged that the petitioners herein, who were subsequently looking after the house had taken away the documents of the property and utilizing the signed blank cheques. The petitioners had taken away Rs.1 lakh and jewels also.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners herein that the defacto complainant had borrowed money from A2 and had issued cheque to A1 and it is stated that therefore, there was no theft of any property.

4. These were the issues that have to be examined and analysed by the jurisdictional Court concerned, for which custodial investigation is required.

5. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1/3

petitioners.

6. The investigating officer is directed to secure the accused and report the same.

7. Post the matter on 20.10.2023 for reporting compliance by the investigation officer.

10.10.2023 mjs 2/3

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

mjs 10.10.2023 3/3