Santhakumar v. The State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.147 of 2024, registered for the offences punishable under Sections of 420 IPC, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2023, the petitioner along with co-accused had had induced the defacto complainant on the false assurance of getting a Government job in Bank of Baroda and received a sum of Rs.26,70,000/-. Hence the case.

3.Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He further submits that totally there are three accused involved in this case. The petitioner herein is the second accused, the allegation against this petitioner is that he had received a sum of Rs.11,00,000/- from the defacto complainant, except that there was no other allegations against this petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner had not received any such amount as alleged by the prosecution. He further submits that the respondent police issued notice

under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner was duly appeared and submitted his explanation to prove his innocence, however, to show his bonafide, he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the defacto complainant, which he was received. The remaining amount was not utilized by him and the same was taken by the other accused persons. He would further submit that the money dispute has been projected as a case of cheating. He further submits that petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

4.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the petitioner along with co-accused had induced the defacto complainant on the false assurance of getting a Government job in Bank of Baroda and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.26,70,000/- and they had cheated the defacto complainant. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner along with other accused persons have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.26,70,000/- on the false assurance of getting a Government job in Bank of Baroda. Hence, the learned counsel for the intervenor opposed for

granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent Police and perused the materials available on record.

7.Taking into consideration the above facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25.11.2024 ah

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

ah 25.11.2024