MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks bail in respect of Crime No. 65 of 2020 registered against him for offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 307, 506 (ii) and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Though the petitioner would contend that it was only a business transaction, where the petitioner had hired the car belonging to the Defacto complainant, the injuries suffered were also simple injuries and the victim has also now been discharged from the hospital, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit though there was only one complaint initially, now there are 38 complaints against the group of persons including the petitioner and it appears to be a large scale fraud. Though it is stated that 38 cars were hired by the petitioner and his accomplices only 5 cars have been seized and the other accused were also absconding. Citing the above, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that enlarging the petitioner on bail would impede the investigation. I find force in the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

(3.) Hence, I do not see any reason to enlarge the petitioner on bail and this petition is therefore dismissed.