S.Thangappalam v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 120(B), 406, 420 IPC read with Section 5 of TNPID Act in Cr.No.06 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that one Kumaresan met the defacto complainant and informed him that there is a co-operative society, namely Amudh Surabhi Thrift and Co-operative Society Ltd., wherein he is working as an agent and induced the defacto complainant to invest some amount in the said co-operative society and cheated him to the tune of Rs.2,92,200/-. 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 the petitioner is one of the director of the said co-operative society. Hence prays for grant of anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit

that the defacto complainant had been induced by one Kumaresan, who is T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

anu one of the agent in Amudh Surabhi Thrift and Co-operative Society Ltd., to invest money and cheated him to the tune of Rs.2,92,200/-. He would submit that the case is under investigation and that after registration of the F.I.R, the respondent police has received 20 complaints till now against the said co-operative society. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned Government Advocate that after registration of the F.I.R., 20 complaints have been received by the respondent against the said co-operative society, which requires a detailed 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