Mohammed Isthak Dillip v. State Rep.By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 468, 471 & 420 of IPC in Crime No.02 of 2016, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner entered a Power of Attorney with one Mr.Varatharajan and made payment of 14.00 lakhs to Mr.Vararatharanan and he transferred his rights to the petitioner, based on that the petitioner entered a deed of Mortgage with Axis Bank. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that petitioner is an no way connected with the alleged offences. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner entered a Power of Attorney with one Mr.Varatharajan and made payment of 14.00 lakhs to Mr.Vararatharanan and he transferred his rights to the petitioner, based on that the petitioner entered a deed of Mortgage with Axis Bank. He further submitted that investigation is at crucial stage and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail at this juncture, then there will be possibility of tampering the witnesses, abcondence and hampering the investigation. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and perused the material available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, gravity of offence and the fact that investigation is still pending, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition for anticipatory bail stands dismissed.

06.01.2023 jai

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

jai 06.01.2023