Sankar Naryanan v. State Represented By

Crl.O.P.No.28205 of 2024 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.01 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner herein had taken a Toyoto Innova Crysta car bearing registration No.TN-73-AW-4678 on lease from the accused, who runs Sai Cars Rental company and falsely projected as if they are running a car rental company, thereby induced gullible victims to attach their cars with the company and cheated several car owners and as on today, there are about 248 victims. He would further submit the petitioner who had taken the said car on lease had not returned the same and also one of the member of the said car rental company. Hence, this case. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that believing the words of other accused, who runs car

rental company in the name and style of Sai Cars Rental Car Limited, the petitioner had hired a Toyoto Innova Crysta car bearing registration No.TN73-AW-4678 and later the car has also been taken back by the accused. He further submitted that the other accused have cheated various car owners and never returned the car or paid the lease amount as promised. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to furnish sufficient sureties and to abide with any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court, therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.

Per contra, Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that the petitioner herein is also one of the person, who had taken a Toyoto Innova Crysta car bearing registration No.TN-73-AW-4678 on lease from the accused and the same is under the custody of this petitioner, and yet to be recovered. He further opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner by stating that, if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, there is no possibility of recovery of the car and further custodial interrogation is also required in this case. 5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and

perused the materials available on record including the FIR. 6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering that investigation is pending and custodial interrogation is required in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13.11.2024 stn

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J., stn 13.11.2024