M.Murali v. State Rep. By

P.DHANABAL, J.

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(i) IPC in Crime No.28 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant parted money for business to the petitioners and inturn the petitioners had cheated the money and when the defacto complainant sought money the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences, hence the case 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the petitioners are innocent and a false case has been foisted against them. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the defacto complainant had parted money for business to the petitioners. However, the petitioners had cheated the money. When the defacto complainant requested return of money, the accused persons threatened him with dire consequences. Therefore, he objected to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.Heard both side and perused the materials available on record.

6.Considering the gravity of the offences and also considering the money involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

28.12.2023 gd/mpl

P.DHANABAL, J.

gd/mpl 28.12.2023