Mohammed Dawood Khan v. Inspector Of Police

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

The petitioner is A2 in Crime No.78 of 2023. The petitioner is A7 in Crime No.17 of 2023. The said FIRs had been registered under Sections 409, 420, 34 IPC and Sections 406, 420, 120 B IPC respectively. 2.It is the case of the defacto complainant that all the accused persons had stated that they would be able to procure loan of higher amount and for that, commission should be paid.

3.It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has been alternatively using his name Mohammed Dawood Khan and Vasudev. It is stated that both the names relate to the same person, namely, the petitioner herein. The petitioner had received a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-/Rs.3,98,10,000/- in the two cases respectively from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, the accused person did not return the money, which had been received and had not arranged the loan. This led to lodging of complaint and registration of FIR. Among all the accused, one of the accused had been arrested and detained under Act 14 of 1982. According to the respondent, investigation 1/4

has not yet commenced and interrogation of the petitioner is required. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was yet another case in Pune, where the petitioner was an accused along with one Karthick and stated that there was a condition for grant of bail and the petitioner complied the same and deposited a sum of Rs.1.5/- crore. It is stated that the said Karthick had been involved in many other cases and wherever he was involved in any case, he has also dragged the petitioner herein as one of the co-accused. This aspect is not relevant so far as the facts of the present case is concerned. In this particular case, it is the specific stand of the respondent that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.32,00,000/-/Rs.3,98,10,000/- in the two cases respectively. 5.

In view of the facts, investigation will have to be done about the trail of the money and about the nature of the modus operandi and also about the identity of the petitioner who appears to have used two separate names and also the fact that within Chennai, there is yet another case registered against the petitioner herein, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein.

2/4

6.Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed. 28.11.2023 sli C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.

3/4

sli 28.11.2023 4/4