Janani v. Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120(B) of IPC, in Crime No.3 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant Devi Nirmala is that, the petitioner along with other accused was unknown to me but known by one Arulmugaraja and Ramachandran Advocate. On their request and advice, I borrowed money from IOB by pledging my jewels and transferred a sum of Rs.50 lakhs to Cholamandam Finance Company and get the petitioner's property released from the mortgage. She promised to repay the amount within three months. However she has not kept her promise and cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. Today, there is no representation on the side of the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioners herein are arrayed as A1 and A2,. Already these petitioners gave assurance that they would deposit the amount, but as on date, no such deposit has been made. He also submits that the petitioners were not co-operating with the enquiry. Hence, he vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5 .Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and on seeing the conduct of the petitioner it needs detailed investigation includes custodial interrogation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. However, the respondent police is directed to secure the accused within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 04.04.2024 drl

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

drl

04.04.2024