KANGEYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14/12/2022 for the alleged offence under Ss. 420, 468, 471 of I.P.C. and Sec.66-D of Information Technology Act in Crime No.25 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is running a poultry farm, approached the petitioner for loan to develop his business and he introduced A1 for the said loan. Believing words of petitioner, he had given a sum of Rs.17,48,000.00 to the account of A1 in the presence of petitioner for getting loan. But the accused person neither arranged loan nor returned the amount to the defacto complainant, thereby, they cheated him. Hence, the complaint.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not acquainted with A1 and he got introduced as a banker, who promoted for availing loan for any business development. He would submit that when the defacto complainant mentioned about his need for taking loan for his business development, he introduced him to A1 and thereafter, he did not involve in any of transactions. He would submit that not even a penny was alleged to have been transferred to the account of petitioner or received by him. He would submit that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not at all committed any offence. He would also submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration for more than 35 days from 14/12/2022. On instructions, he would further submit that without prejudice to his right and contentions, he is prepared to deposit/pay some considerable amount. Accordingly, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.