The court can consider a second application for anticipatory bail on additional grounds or change of circumstances.

1. The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for a case registered by them for the alleged offences punishable under Sec.420 and 34 of IPC in Cr.No.150 of 2010 on a complaint lodged by M/s MINDLOGICX Infotech Limited (hereinafter referred to as Defacto-complainant).

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

M/s MINDLOGICX Infotech Limited of Bangalore/defacto-complainant herein was approached by the petitioner, who represented M/s SSAAFF Technology, promising to secure project funds and an assurance was also given by them for arranging a loan for Rs.20 crores against collateral security.

3. A Memorandum of understanding was also entered into between the Managing Director of MINDLOGICX Infotech Limited and M/s SSAAFF Technology, represented by the petitioner. A commission of 0.5% was to be paid by the defacto-complainant to the said Funding Company. Accordingly, the defacto-complainant paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs by way of Demand Draft, dated 29.10.2009, in favour of the Funding company. One Thiagarajan of the Funding Company visited the defacto-complainant and the documents were sent to one Pachiappan, an Advocate representing as the legal adviser of the Funding Company. The petitioner insisted for further payment of Rs.10,00,000/-to one Vijayakumar, who also represented the Funding Company and the same was also paid to him by cash. Later, a further loan of Rs.5 crores was promised and a further sum of Rs.5 lakhs was also paid to the Funding Company. In total, the defacto-complainant parted with a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to the Funding Company, which is represented by the petitioner. Despite the same, the funding company has not made any loan arrangement, whereupon, the defacto-complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, who registered a case in Cr.No.150 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC.

4. Earlier, the petitioner approached this Court for anticipatory bail by filing Crl.O.P.No.9220 of 2010. He made a representation that the amount involved was only Rs.10 lakhs, out of which, Rs.3 lakhs has been spent for processing the loan and only Rs.7 lakhs has to be repaid to the defacto-complainant. Based on such representation, this Court granted anticipatory bail on 6.5.2010 observing as follows:

"3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that out of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.3,00,000/- has been spent in the process of getting loan. Further the petitioner has filed an affidavit and undertakes to repay Rs.7 lakhs within a period of three months".

5. Complying with the condition, the petitioner had also made payment of Rs.7,00,000/-by way of demand draft to the defacto-cmplainant.

However, the defacto-complainant filed a petition in MP No.3/2010 seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted on 6.5.2010 on the ground that there was suppression of fact, that the amount actually paid by the defacto-complainant being Rs.25,00,000/-, the sum was wrongly stated only as Rs.10,00,000/-. This Court passed a detailed order on 7.9.2010 holding that the petitioner had suppressed the factum about the receipt of Rs.25,00,000/- on three occasions and ultimately cancelled the anticipatory bail granted on 6.5.2010. Under such circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present application for grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Mr.N.R. Elango, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is a law abiding citizen and he has been falsely implicated in the case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. The learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that the petitioner has permanent residence within the jurisdiction of the respondent and he is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that actually there was no suppression of fact on the part of the petitioner as the actual amount received by the petitioner was only Rs.10,00,000/- and not Rs.25,