JUDGMENT Suraj Govindaraj, J. - The petitioner is before this Court seeking for his release on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.112/2019 arising out of FIR dated 06.07.2019 registered on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru under Sections 506, 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. A complaint came to be filed by one Mr. Nandyal Umesh Kumar on 06.07.2019 alleging that he had been introduced to Mrs. Preeti Sunil by one Mr. Anand who is known to the complainant, the said Preethi Sunil being the classmate of Anand's wife. On the basis of the said introduction, the said Preethi Sunil who is the wife of the petitioner herein informed the complainant that she can sell gold and silver articles at much lesser than the market price towards which she prevailed upon and induced the complainant to invest funds in Multiple Commodity Exchange (MCX) for trading. 3. Initially to gain the trust of the complainant during the course of first five transactions, she had supplied gold and silver articles at lesser than the market price and gained the confidence of the complainant thereby inducing the complainant to invest much larger amounts of money with her and her husband. However, the gold and silver articles which were required to be supplied were not so supplied. Hence, the complainant took up the matter with the petitioner and Preeti Sunil, when several cheques were issued totaling up to Rs.47 Crores and a Bipartite Settlement Agreement was also entered into on 13.12.2018 inspite of which amounts were not paid. 4. The complainant followed up with Preethi Sunil and her husband, the petitioner herein to honour the terms and to repay the amount which was not paid and it is on this basis, the complaint came to be filed alleging that the said Preethi Sunil, the petitioner and several others had conspired together to cheat the complainant. 5. Subsequent to the said complaint being filed, the said Preethi Sunil and the petitioner had jointly approached the LXIV City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-65) at Bengaluru vide Crl.Misc.No.7197/2019 which came to be dismissed by the order of said Court dated 30.08.2019 on the ground that if anticipatory bail was granted, there is every chance of petitioners absconding, not co-operating with the Investigating Agency and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. 6. Sri. 6. Sri. A. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that there are no particular allegations which have been made in the complaint against the petitioner, no overact is alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner could be enlarged on anticipatory bail on terms that may be fixed by this Court. 7. Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit that the crime alleged is serious in nature the petitioner and his wife are alleged to have defrauded the complainant of large sums of money. There is a specific allegation made in the complaint that attempts were made by both the wife Preethi Sunil and the husband, the petitioner herein. The matter requires investigation even according to the petitioner, the petitioner is based in Delhi and so far the jurisdictional police have been unable to question the petitioner as regards the alleged crime. In this background, she submits that the petitioner is required for custodial interrogation as also that in the event of the petitioner being released on bail, he is likely to abscond. 8. Heard Sri. A. Sampath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP for the respondent-State and perused the records. 9. The petitioner has not denied the transaction that has occurred between his wife and the complainant except to state that he is not aware of it and was not part of any of the alleged transaction. It is further contended by the petitioner that he cannot be held liable for the acts of his wife if she has committed the crime. It is further contended that the petitioner is based in Delhi and had no role to play in the transaction that was, if at all, entered into by his wife. It cannot prima-facie be said that any crime has been committed by the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner if arrested, grave harm and injury will be caused to the petitioner. 10. The said contentions cannot be believed inasmuch as the complainant has made specific allegation about the relationship of Preethi Sunil and the petitioner, the business of the petitioner namely welding material supplying carried out and in the name and style of Kashyap Wielding Corporation. Furthermore, there are specific allegations made with regard to the payments being made to both the husband and wife Preethi Sunil. 11. Furthermore, there are specific allegations made with regard to the payments being made to both the husband and wife Preethi Sunil. 11. Apart there from, the petitioner along with his wife had jointly filed Crl.Misc.No.7179/2019 wherein both of them have sought for anticipatory bail to be granted to them. There are other statements which were made therein by the husband and wife jointly stating that they will abide by the law and that they hail from respectable families, they are ready to abide by any terms that may be imposed to enlarge them a anticipatory bail. 12. In this background, it cannot be accepted that the petitioner is not aware of or not part of the business ventures of his wife, more particularly when large amounts of money are said to have been collected by his wife Preethi Sunil. The investigation would definitely require interrogation of the petitioner in order to ascertain if at all any crime is permitted, if at all payments are made and if made, what happened to the said money. There are large amount of money involved in the matter and there is every likelihood of petitioner to abscond and not be available for the said interrogation and investigation. 13. Another fact that is relevant is that the application which was filed before the Sessions Court was filed jointly by the husband, the petitioner herein and wife Preethi Sunil. Subsequently that the said Preethi Sunil has filed separate application in Crl.P.No.1355/2020 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 20.03.2020 and a separate application has been filed by the petitioner in the above matter. There appears to be a specific attempt made by both of them to distance each other and seek for anticipatory bail as if they are not known or related to each other, which is not correct in light of a joint application having been filed earlier. In the above background, the petition is rejected and is dismissed .