Dhanalakshmi v. State Rep By

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.10 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant/Venkatesan who was working in the private company is that the accused had induced him to invest a sum of Rs.9,81,725/- in share market business. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant had invested the amount. Later when he had asked for return of money, the accused had refused to return the money and also intimidated him. Thereafter, during the course of investigation, it came to light that the accused apart from cheating the defacto complainant had also cheated several other general public to the tune of more than Rs.7.5 crores. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent house wife and she is not aware of the business

transaction. He would further submit that the husband of the petitioner was arrested and he was in custody for nearly 100 days and thereafter released on bail. The petitioner who is the house wife who has nothing to do with the business dealings of her husband is being harassed by the respondent. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner is the Director in the Company and she is well aware of the business transactions of her husband. He would further submit that apart from the defacto complainant several other general public have been cheated and the total amount involved in this case is more than Rs.7.5 crores. He would further submit that the petitioner's husband was arrested and released on bail and he has not disclosed anything about the whereabouts of the cheated amount and the respondent are taking effective steps to find out the immovable properties belonging to the petitioner and other accused. He would further submit that if at the stage, anticipatory bail is granted to

the petitioner, there is every possibility of the petitioner interfering with the investigation. However, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on records. It is a case where the petitioner apart from cheating the defacto complainant had also cheated several other gullible general public to the tune of Rs.7.5 crores.

6. Taking into consideration, the submissions so made by the the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) the investigation is at nascent stage and the magnitude of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 30.03.2023 jas

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.

jas 30.03.2023