ORDER 1. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking Anticipatory Bail for the commission of alleged offences under Sections 420 and 506(ii) I.P.C in connection with the case in Cr. No. 2513 of 2011. 2. The case of the prosecution is that one M.K. Mohan lodged a complaint before the respondent police stating that there was some dispute with regard to the properties between himself and his brother, for that, he approached the petitioner for settlement, who is a very influential person and he would settle the dispute. On 2.4.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., both the de facto complainant and the petitioner met one Daniel Samuel, who is arrayed as 1st accused, in his office at Saidapet and invoked him with regard to the family dispute for which he demanded a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only). Subsequently, the misunderstanding between the brothers came to a halt. 3. The de facto complainant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) to the petitioner/2nd accused, for giving the same to the first accused. On 2.11.2010, the petitioner withdrew the amount and paid to the same to the first accused. However, the 1st accused stating that he alone settled the matter and kept the property documents of the de facto complainant and intimidated the de facto complainant and also extracted money. Both the de facto complainant and his wife Ms. Lalitha Mohan withdrew the money and paid to the first accused through the petitioner. The 1st accused also threatened that he would do away with them. The de facto complainant had paid Rs. 5,50,00,000/- to the first accused then and there and got the documents. Further, both the accused together with criminally intimidated the de facto complainant to extract money. 4. The learned senior counsel Mr. Alagirisamy appearing for the petitioner would contend that earlier the de facto complainant had filed a complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Chennai on 13.7.2011 wherein the entire allegations are against the first accused and that the only allegation with regard to the petitioner is that he introduced him to the first accused. The learned senior counsel Mr. Alagirisamy appearing for the petitioner would contend that earlier the de facto complainant had filed a complaint with the Joint Commissioner of Police, South Chennai on 13.7.2011 wherein the entire allegations are against the first accused and that the only allegation with regard to the petitioner is that he introduced him to the first accused. He further says that in the concluding portion of the said complaint, the de facto complainant has requested the police to take suitable action against the first accused and it shows that there was no intention on his part to take any criminal action against this petitioner. He also says that the allegations in the earlier petition were made by the petitioner in a casual manner, which were relied upon by this Court. In the earlier petition, it is stated that the de facto complainant has given his property documents and 3 blank cheques to the petitioner which were handed over to the de facto complainant. The learned senior counsel also says that the brother of de facto complainant by name Pratap Moturi has given an affidavit, wherein he has stated that the dispute between brothers is pending and that the allegations in the complaint are not true. It is his submission that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to harass the de facto complaint and that he may be granted anticipatory bail. 5. The learned counsel Mr. C.A. Thiagarajan appearing for the de facto complainant would contend that both the accused have extracted a huge sum of Rs. 5,50,00,000/- from the de facto complainant that they would settle the family dispute, but they did not settle the same and they cheated and also criminally intimidated the de facto complainant. 6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is pending, that there are allegations in the complaint representing that these petitioners have extracted money to the tune of Rs. 5,50,000/- from the de facto complainant that the investigating officer has addressed the Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Redhills Branch to freeze the account of the 2nd accused on 30.11.2011 and that Anticipatory Bail to the petitioner may be refused. 7. It is the first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the intervener that the present application being a second petition for Anticipatory Bail, is not legally maintainable. 7. It is the first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the intervener that the present application being a second petition for Anticipatory Bail, is not legally maintainable. He says that having defeated in the earlier attempt in getting Anticipatory Bail, the petitioner is not entitled to file another application seeking Anticipatory Bail. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Pawan Kumar Beriwal v. State of West Bengal wherein the learned Judges have held that second petition for anticipatory bail in the same case is not maintainable. He also cited a decision of Delhi High Court in Balbir Kaur v. State of Delhi 2006 DLT 132 -622 wherein it is stated observed that the second anticipatory bail application does not lie. 8. In Rajkumar v. State 2006 DLT 128 -264 : 2006-AD(Del)-2-700 the High Court of Delhi has held that there cannot be any dispute that accused cannot be permitted to seek the relief of anticipatory bail on change or the expected change of Court’s roster, which clearly amounts to abuse of process of Court and it has to be discouraged. 9. In Alam v. State of Rajasthan 2011 Crl.L.J-0-1674 the High Court of Rajasthan has also taken a similar view that the second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that a second application of Anticipatory Bail is very well maintainable, as per the settled position. In support of his contention he placed much reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1996 (0) MPLJ 662 wherein the learned Judges have held that the second petition for anticipatory bail is maintainable and it would not make any difference if earlier application was dismissed on merits or on account of having been withdrawn or not pressed. The learned Judges have also referred to various decisions of the Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as other High Courts to reach the conclusion. 11. The learned senior counsel also garners support from a decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan alias R.K. v. The State and Another wherein V.Kanagaraj, J. scrutinised the circumstances considered in various authorities of the Honourable Supreme Court and held that the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. 11. The learned senior counsel also garners support from a decision of this Court in Radhakrishnan alias R.K. v. The State and Another wherein V.Kanagaraj, J. scrutinised the circumstances considered in various authorities of the Honourable Supreme Court and held that the second anticipatory bail application is maintainable. Paras 17, 22 and 26 of the judgment are relevant, which go thus: “17. From among the cases cited on the part of the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the first judgment in Imratlal Vishwakarma v. State of M.P. (1997) 1 Crimes 289 (Madh Pra) would justify the maintainability of the second application for anticipatory bail and would further remark that such a second application would not make any difference if earlier application was dismissed on merit or on account of having been withdrawn as not pressed. Some more clarity would be given in the second Judgment cited by the learned senior counsel in Gheesya v. State of Rajasthan (1989) 1 Crimes 524 (Raj) thereby observing that after all the petitioners are apprehending their arrest because of the cancellation of their bail and when arrest is apprehended, the petitioners have reasons to believe that they may be arrested on the accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence and so they can apply for grant of anticipatory bail.’ 22. The above extraction from the third report of the National Police Commission and following the same, the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court, as extracted above, in the context of the case of the petitioner in hand would not only strongly suggest against causing the arrest of the petitioner much less in the name of custodial interrogation and in this context, this Court is of the strong conviction that if the norms and principles suggested by the third report of the National Police Commission followed by the observations made by the Honourable Apex Court are to be adopted and applied in their entirety, it goes without saying that the petitioner becomes entitled to the benefit of Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure and all that is uttered against granting the anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner will only fall to the ground. 26. 26. The last order cited is the order passed by this Court in two criminal original petitions and it is also relating to similar companies carrying on such business seeking a direction to the Director General of Police, prime Branch and Economic Offences Wing and the Inspector General of Police, Economic Offences Wing to withdraw their directions issued to the various enforcement agencies in the State to initiate action against the petitioner companies and to restrain their subordinates from causing interference in the business; in which this Court refused to cause such interference into the rights of the respondents in initiating such legal measures against those companies.” In the said case, earlier anticipatory bail was granted by the Sessions Court and the same was cancelled at the instance of the Prosecutor. Thereafter, the accused filed a petition before the High Court for anticipatory bail, but subsequently he withdrew it. Then he filed anticipatory bail application. In such circumstance, this Court has passed the above order. The learned Judge has followed the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. AIR 1994 SC 1349 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1172 : (1994) Crl.L.J.1981. 12. I have considered the submissions made by both parties. This Court has also scrupulously gone through the decisions cited by both parties. In my considered opinion, if the Court is able to find out a real apprehension on the part of the accused in the given circumstance of the case, it is immaterial to see whether it is a first anticipatory bail application or subsequent anticipatory bail petition or petition was withdrawn or not pressed. 13. In the case on hand, this Court is agreeing with the view expressed by V. KANAGARAJ, J, who has followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court. I am also in respectful agreement with the opinion rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). In these circumstances, I hold that the second anticipatory bail is maintainable. 14. I am also in respectful agreement with the opinion rendered by the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Imratlal Vishwakarma and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). In these circumstances, I hold that the second anticipatory bail is maintainable. 14. Adverting to the facts of the case, the earlier application filed by this petitioner in Crl.O.P. No. 28299 of 2011 has suffered dismissal at my hands on 13.12.2011 on the ground that the investigation was pending that the petitioner has alleged in the petition that he got the property documents and cheques from the de facto complainant and that the transaction was between the de facto complainant and the petitioner and the first accused was no in picture. 15. The learned senior counsel brings to the notice of the Court to the contents of the earlier complaint filed by the de facto complainant before the Joint Commissioner of Police. It is stated by the learned counsel for the intervener that the present complaint is the Tamil translation of the earlier complaint. The earlier complaint is dated 13.7.2011 in which the de facto complainant has alleged that the second accused took him to the first accused who demanded Rs. 50 lakhs to settle the dispute between the brothers. He also says about the payments then and there to the second accused. But, in the later portion of the complaint, the de facto complainant trains guns against the first accused. It is stated therein that the first accused even refused to meet him and he did not return the money. The following are the later paragraphs in the first compliant: “I state that I met Mr. Daniel in his house and informed him that if he does not return the money and the cheque I will be lodging a case against him. He immediately returned two cheques of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rs. one crore only) each and informed that he will return the same sum of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Rs. Five Crores and twenty five lakhs) and the other cheque in three days. I state that the said Mr. Daniel has failed and neglected to return the money and the cheque and has committed the act of cheating and breach of trust and also threatened me with dire consequences which endangered my life. He has dishonestly induced me to deliver the money on the pretext of settling the issue. I state that the said Mr. Daniel has failed and neglected to return the money and the cheque and has committed the act of cheating and breach of trust and also threatened me with dire consequences which endangered my life. He has dishonestly induced me to deliver the money on the pretext of settling the issue. But he has not settled the issue and he did not even to attempt to settle the issue. The said Mr. Daniel deceived me of valuable security and he is liable to be punished. I state that when I enquired in that area they informed me that Mr. Daniel is in the habit of cheating people and he is always seen in the company of political persons. I state that Mr. Daniel has cheated me and had taken a sum of Rs. 5,25,00,000/- (Rs. five crores and twenty five lakhs) and he his avoiding to return the said money when I demanded he threatened me with dire consequences to my life. Mr. Daniel has committed criminal offence and he is liable to be punished. I request your goodself to investigate the case and take suitable action against Mr. Daniel for cheating, Breach of trust and also recover the cheque and the money from him.” 16. In the above said complaint, the de facto complainant has requested the police to take action against the first accused for cheating , breach of trust and also recover cheque and money from him. It transpires that the present complaint is not to a tamil translation of the earlier complaint. In the present complaint, the allegations are against both the accused. The de facto complainant has taken different stands in both the occasions. 17. The above said circumstances are stated to be change in circumstances. Earlier, the above said allegations were not highlighted before this Court. Even though the investigation is pending, this Court does not find that the custodial interrogation is essential. In view of the allegations made in the earlier complaint, this Court is of the considered view that even if the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail, there may not be any likelihood for him to hamper the investigation nor tamper the witnesses. 18. In view of the allegations made in the earlier complaint, this Court is of the considered view that even if the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail, there may not be any likelihood for him to hamper the investigation nor tamper the witnesses. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai and on his executing a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned or to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest and on further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the respondent police daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of four weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation. Petition allowed.