B.Sudharsanan v. State Rep By

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 420, 502(ii), 34 of IPC, in Crime No.580 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the de-facto complainant is that the accused approached him for buying materials for their company running in the name and style of Sukra Concrete Private Limited and on believing them, he supplied the materials worth of Rs.25,21,743/-. After receiving the materials, the accused cheated him not paying the money. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner had resigned from the alleged company before the incident happened and not aware of any financial transactions, since he had resigned from that company. He also submitted that the petitioner is no way

connected with the alleged offence and he is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with the other accused approached the de-facto complainant for buying materials for their company and cheated him by not paying the amount. He also submitted that the accused have also cheated many others. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the Intervenor raised his objection stated that the petitioner along with the other accused have committed a heinous crime and committed a fraud against the petitioner and other people. He also stated that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he will tamper the records. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard both the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and considering the gravity and nature of the offence and also taking note of the fact that this case needs detailed investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 03.01.2023 ham

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

ham 03.01.2023