Kannammal v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20-02-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Kannammal W/o. Kumaravel, No.1/89, Eswaran Kovil Street, Muthunaickenpatti, Omalur, Salem District.
2. Sathya W/o. Arulkumar, No.1/89, Eswaran Kovil Street, Muthunaickenpatti, Omalur, Salem District.
..petitioners(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wings, Chennai. ..Respondent PRAYER: This Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.08 of 2024 on the file of The Inspector of Police, EOW, Chennai.
For petitioners(s):
Mr.Lingakumar Raja For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of IPC, and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.08 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against these petitioners is that these petitioners are ranked as A4 and A5 in this case. A1 is the Company in this case, A1 to A3 were actively participated in the Company's affairs and collected a sum of Rs.40 lakhs from 30 victims and promised to give huge profits. However, it has not been honoured and funds paid by the victims have been rooted through the bank accounts of these petitioners and further, the amount has been siphoned off for purchasing the lands in the name of these petitioners. Hence, these petitioners have also been added as an accused in this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that these petitioners are ladies and their accounts have been misused by A2 in this case. He further submitted that A2 in this case was earlier arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and upon instructions, submitted that since A2 is a Government servant, he has engaged A3 as a Managing Director to run the Company and further various lands and properties were purchased and cash transactions were taken place for the Company only
through these petitioners herein and they are aware of the properties purchased and money transacted in their accounts. Hence they have actively participated in the case and no property has been recovered from them. Hence, she opposed to grant anticipatory bail to these petitioners.
5. I have also gone through the records and connected materials and it revealed that these petitioners have actively participated in this case and further in the account of the first petitioner, more than Rs.1.16 Crores of transactions have been made and similarly, various properties have been purchased in the name of the A2 and bank account has also been operated. This shows that both these petitioners were actively participated in the affairs of A1's Company and that the total amount involved is Rs.40 lakhs and no property has been recovered so far in this regard. Hence, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 20-02-2026
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
GV To
1. State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wings, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
20-02-2026