M.G.Manivannan v. State Rep By

Crl.O.P.No.29106 of 2023 P. DHANABAL, J.

The petitioner who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 r/w 34 & 506 (i) of IPC in Crime No.31 of 2023, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the company M/s.S.M.Group owned by the petitioner and his brother had approached the defacto complainant for the purpose of investment. The defacto complainant received Rs.6,75,000/- and not received the balance amount and the petitioner had stopped the payment. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and no way connected with the alleged offence. He would further submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the

the M/s.S.M.Group owned by the petitioner and his brother had approached the defacto complainant for the purpose of investment. The defacto complainant received Rs.6,75,000/- and not received the balance amount. He would further submit that the investigation is not yet completed and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility that he will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration of the gravity of offence, quantum of amounts involved and the case is in the initial stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 28.12.2023 dhk P.DHANABAL, J.

dhk Crl.O.P.No.29106 of 2023 28.12.2023