P.Jayavel 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 120-B, 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act 1997 in Crime No.6 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is running an eyeglass shop named Shree Optic World at Salem; while that being so, one Kumaresan met him in his shop and informed that a Co-Operative Society named Amudh Surabhi Thrift and Co-Operative Society Ltd, Salem in which the petitioner herein is the president of that Co-Operative Society and if a deposit is made in the Co-Operative Society, defacto complainant will get a bonus amount along with the deposited amount and on believing his words defacto complainant opened daily small savings scheme in his wife name and deposited Rs.100/- per day for a period of one year totally Rs.34,400/- as principal and deposited Rs.600/- per day in daily savings scheme in his daughter name for a period of 11 months totally Rs.1,68,000/- as principal amount and 1/4

further deposited Rs.300/- per day in daily savings scheme under his name for a period of 10 months totally Rs.79,800/- as principal amount and also deposited in medical scheme in his daughter name for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. Totally Rs.2,92,000/- has been deposited by the defacto complainant. But, the deposited amount along with bonus amount was not returned to the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged occurrence. He also stated that the petitioner 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.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner along with other accused person conspired and cheated the defacto complainant for a sum of Rs.2,92,200/-. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6.

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 of the offence and also taking note of the fact that the case is at initial stage and it needs detailed investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 12.01.2023 nsd/dsn T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

3/4

dsn 12.01.2023 4/4