Mohanraj v. The State Rep.By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in connection with Crime No.151 of 2024, registered for offences under Sections 408, 420 and 477A of IPC, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution, as per defacto complainant, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company limited, is that the accused who was working as Senior Executive (Account) by creating false I.D's diverted unclaimed premium refund claims to fake beneficiaries and thereby cheated the company to the tune of Rs.3.50 Crores. Hence the case.

3. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. She would submit that the petitioner has already repaid a sum of Rs.25 Lakhs and the petitioner has also given post dated cheques during enquiry. He would further submit that the petitioner is

ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, she prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, would submit that, the petitioner was working as Senior Executive in the defacto complainant's company, by creating fake I.D's in the name of the persons known to him, and his relatives illegally diverted the funds to the tune of Rs.3.50 Crores and cheated the defacto complainant. He would further submit that investigation is pending and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor would submit that, the petitioner by creating fake I.D's had diverted the unclaimed premium funds to bogus beneficiaries and thereby cheated the company. Hence, he objects for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, the learned Counsel for the intervenor and perused the entire materials available on record.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, and the magnitude of the offence committed, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.11.2024 (1/2) dsn

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

dsn 14.11.2024 (1/2)