Renu Gopal v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Thursday, the Twenty Seventh day of February Two Thousand Twenty PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.3889 of 2020 1 RENU GOPAL [ PETITIONERS / ACCUSED ] 2 ARUL MURUGAN Vs THE STATE REPRESENTED BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BANK FRAUD PREVENTION WING, TEAM-XII, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007.

For Petitioner : M/S.R.MOHANDOSS, Advocate For Respondent : MR. C.IYYAPPARAJ, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C. in Cr.No.not known of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with the other accused are alleged to have introduced themselves through online as if they would arrange for loan amount in the leading Bank and thereafter, they prepared bogus receipts and forwarded to the victims and without their knowledge, by getting the important details, transacted the amounts in the accounts of the victims to their accounts. Hence, the affected persons lodged he complaints. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the petitioners are Directors of a tourism based company. The main scope of work of the company is to get prospective tourists, procure easy accommodation in well-known resorts including their stay and food on an annual basis, by enrolling them into holiday packages, however, some of the persons mis-understood the scheme and lodged false complaints. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in the recent past, online fraud has increased and the present case is one among them. He would further submit that a detailed investigation will have to be carried out and if these petitioners are granted anticipatory bail it would affect the investigation. 5.In the recent past, online fraud has increased and it is necessary to conduct a detailed investigation with regard to the conduct of the petitioners. If these petitioners are granted anticipatory bail it would affect the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. This Court directs the law enforcing agency to investigate the matter in detail. 6.This criminal original petition is accordingly dismissed. -sd/- 27/02/2020 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, BANK FRAUD PREVENTION WING, TEAM-XII, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, VEPERY, CHENNAI-600 007.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

+1 CC to M/S. SWAMINATHAN LAW ASSOCIATE Advocate on payment of necessary charges SR.NO.4166 CRL OP.3889/2020 Date :27/02/2020 TA-05/03/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/