Sounddara Rajan v. The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Soundara Rajan ... Petitioner Vs.
The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Puducherry.
(Crime No. 135 of 2024).
... Respondent Saravanan ....Intervenor/defacto complainant For Petitioner : Mr.Murugesh Kasivel For Respondent: Mr.M.V.Ramachandra Murthy Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) For Intervenor: Mr.K.Sasindran
O R D E R
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.135 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4) and 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2000, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He would submit that, a case of business transaction has been falsely projected as a case of cheating. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.
3. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that, the petitioner acquainted with the defacto complainant through whatsapp and, on the assurance of giving high returns in the share market/online trading, made him to join in a whatsapp group and induced the defacto complainant to invest, on believing the same, through various transactions, the defacto complainant had invested totally to the tune of Rs.1,69,39,770/- and later, cheated the defacto complainant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/defacto complainant vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, stating that, the petitioner purchased the shares in his name, instead in the name of the defacto complainant.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) for the respondent Police, the learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto complainant and perused the materials available on record, considering the facts and the submissions and also the fact that huge amount was cheated by the accused, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21.01.2025 (1/2) dsn To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station, Puducherry.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Puducherry.
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
dsn 21.01.2025 (1/2)