R.Devi v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of April Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.743 of 2021 R.DEVI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU, [ RESPONDENT ] THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONIMIC OFFENCE WING-II, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

CRIME NO.1 OF 2019.

For Petitioner : M/S.DEEPANUDAY Advocate For Respondent : MR.T.SHUNMUGARAJESWARAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 r/w.Sections 3, 4, 5 and 21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance Act, 2019 in Cr.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that totally there are five accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A5, who is wife of A4. Believing the words of A2, namely, Senthilkumar, Managing Director of the Money Deal Trading Solutions, the defacto complainant and his family members invested a sum of Rs.12,57,000/- in the said company, for which, they received only a sum of Rs.6,36,959/- by way of bonus and withdrawal and thereafter, the defacto complainant had not received any money from A1/company. On enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that he and his family were cheated. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is an innocent person and she is in no way connected with the alleged offence as prosecuted and further submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail the petitioner.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that the petitioner and other accused is said to have collected a sum of Rs.8 crores by making promise 'doubling the money' from the innocent people and thereby cheated. In this transaction, a sum of Rs.6 crores have been credited in the petitioner's account and totally there are 163 victims suffered in this case. Therefore, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there was a transaction that a sum of Rs.6 crores was credited in petitioner's account in respect of this case and that the investigation is still underway, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. -sd/- 19/04/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONIMIC OFFENCE WING-II, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.DEEPANUDAY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.743/2021 Date :19/04/2021 MK:18/06/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/