Sneha Chirag Makwana v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twenty Second day of April Two Thousand Twenty Two PRESENT The Hon`ble Dr Justice G. JAYACHANDRAN CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.9255 of 2022 SNEHA CHIRAG MAKWANA [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CB CID, METRO WING-II, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600008.

(CRIME NO.10 OF 2017) For Petitioner : M/S.S.RAVINDRANATH Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SANTHOSH, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehending arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420 read with 120(B) of I.P.C., in Crime No.10 of 2017, on the file of respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is a case where the defacto complainant has entrusted 62 grams of diamond worth about Rs.65 lakhs to the 1st accused, who is the husband of the present petitioner. Under the pretext of valuing, the diamond were received by A1 forwarded to Bombay by A2 through courier. After sometime, diamond were returned to the defacto complainant. On verification, it was found that, the diamond which was entrusted to A1 worth Rs.69 lakhs has been substituted and duplication of diamond which hardly worth Rs.2.5 lakhs handed over to the defacto complainant. The investigation has disclosed the fact that, the diamond entrusted to A1 been couriered by A2 his wife, who is the petitioner herein and the valuation certificate indicates that, the diamond which worth Rs.69 lakhs been substituted by duplication https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

diamond worth Rs.2.5 Lakhs. In this said circumstances, when the Investigation Officer has summoned the petitioner for her appearance, she has not appeared before the Investigating Officer, but now had filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail. Dr.G.Jayachandran, J.

3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that, she is the resident of Mumbai and therefore, she was not able to respond to the summons. But, she is ready to cooperate with the investigation. However, Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent/state submit that, the conduct of the petitioner herein does not inspire confidence that, she will cooperate with the investigation. Furthermore, the gravity of crime requires custodial interrogation by the Investigating Officer. Since the real substitution of the precious stone has been done only after the jewels been given to the custody of the present petitioner. Considering the serious objections by the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and merits in this submission, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 22/04/2022 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, CBCID, METRO WING-II, EGMORE, CHENNAI 600008.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S.S.RAVINDRANATH Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.9255/2022 Date :22/04/2022 JPA 02/05/2022 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/