S.Bakiyalakshimi v. The State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.5 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused induced the defacto complainant to invest in fancy schemes and received a sum of Rs.1.35 Crores and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioners, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that other than introducing the defacto complainant with A3 and A4, the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the defacto complainant has taken away a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs from the petitioners. Hence, a false case has been foisted against the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Page No.1 of 3

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent while opposing for grant of bail would submit that the petitioners induced the defacto complainant in the guise of running fancy financial schemes and thereby, cheated to the tune of Rs.1.35 Crores and he would submit that the investigation is pending.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioners had induced the defacto complainant and cheated him to the tune of Rs.1.35 Crores.

6. Considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 04.12.2024 (1⁄2) mn Page No.2 of 3

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA , J.

mn 04.12.2024 Page No.3 of 3