The denial of bail was based on the risk of tampering with evidence and hindrance to the ongoing investigation, considering the serious nature of the alleged offenses and the petitioner's past conduct.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.2/2021 pending investigation on the file of the respondent.)

1. The Petition for bail is filed by first accused facing investigation for alleged offences under section 120(B), 193, 201, 205, 209, 419, 420, 466 of I.P.C on the ground that the petitioner has repaid the money alleged to have been cheated by impersonation and forgery and no further investigation against him is required.

2. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. The Petition and counter perused.

3. The petitioner claims himself as Lawyer and member of Kangayam Bar for the past 28 years. The respondent police alleges that, he is also a forger of Court records, fraudster and cheat.

4. The First Information Report dated 28/07/2021 in short says, in M.C.O.P No.911/2011 filed by the petitioner on behalf of K.Balasubramaniam and Eshwari, the Tribunal has passed award of Rs.1,00,000/- to Balasubramaniam and Rs.2,44,000/- to Eshwari on 21/01/2013. On petition, the award amount was disbursed by way of cheques on 10/04/2015. The photographs of the real petitioners were removed and the photographs of impersonators were affixed and with the connivance of the Court staff, cheques were issued to the impersonators. The petitioner herein as the Counsel in the said case has played the pivotal role in the crime conspiring with the other accused persons.

5. When the real petitioners filed petition dated 09/03/2020 for payment of the compensation amount, the fraud came to light and the High Court ordered enquiry. On coming to know about the enquiry, the petitioner herein has deposited the money into the account of the real petitioners on 09/09/2020. Also made the real petitioners to give a joint statement before the Court about the receipt of the money. Thus, it is alleged in the First Information Report that, the petitioner not only arranged for impersonators but also after five years made payment to the real claimants and created documents to screen the crime.

6. Earlier the petitioner obtained anticipatory bail claiming he is innocent and whatever occurred in this case was done by his Clerk Sivakumar. Later, the anticipatory bail was cancelled on 23/08/2021 after considering the letter of the Honourable Sub-Judge, Dharapuram. The Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the cancellation of his anticipatory bail was also dismissed.

7. Pursuant to the direction of this Court in Suo motu Writ Petition No.12935/2021 dated 10/12/2021, the investigation was transferred to CBCID on 31/12/2021. The petitioner was arrested on 08/01/2022.

8. The counter filed by the respondent states that, “the petitioner/accused A1 Murugesan has not only committed offence in M.C.O.P.No.911 of 2011 but also involved in many MCOP scams and he had deposited a sum of Rs.9,16,747/- on the account of Honourable Subordinate Judge, Dharapuram on various dates in point of accepting the offence committed. Now he has paid balance amount of Rs.13,53,904/- on 04.02.2022 through the receipt”.

9. The Investigating Officer, in his counter has expressed his apprehension that the petitioner who is influential had already tampered Court records and if released on bail before completion of the investigation, there is every possibility of tampering of evidence. Being a serious crime of cheating innocent motor accident claimants and the magnitude of the crime it needs investigation without interference.

10. The previous conduct of the petitioner who had created records to show that he has paid the money to the claimants by RTGS after knowing about the complaint against him, is sufficient to prove he is capable of tampering and screening evidence, beside create false evidence.

11. The plea of the petitioner seeking liberty does not impress this Court, in the light of the material available and his