C.Meganathan v. State Rep. By

P.DHANABAL,J.

The petitioners/A3 and A4, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 of the IPC in Crime No.64 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners/A3 and A4 and other accused under the guise of doing real estate business had swindled money to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Lakhs Only) from the defacto complainant. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/A3 and A4 would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons, they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution, and the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the defacto complainant purchased land from the first and second accused only; that the first and second accused had executed the document and gave a 1/5

Power of Attorney to the defacto complainant; and that the petitioners/A3 and A4 are the only witnesses who had signed the Power of Attorney document. He further submitted that the petitioners are law-abiding citizens; and that they are ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for their due release and to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court and therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are six accused in this case; that the petitioners are arrayed as A3 and A4; that the petitioners and the other accused swindled money to the tune of Rs.85,00,000/- from the defacto complaint by way of selling the land; and that the petitioners/A3 and A4, who introduced the first and second accused to the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the first and second accused are still absconding; and that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/5

5.Learned Counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the submissions made by both sides and considering that the investigation has not yet completed and the gravity of the offence, this Court is declining to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

28.08.2024 dk Copy to 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I Poonamallee.

2.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-I 3/5

Avadi, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

dk 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai - 600 104.

4/5

28.08.2024 (2/3) 5/5