S Saranya v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 26.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN S. Saranya W/o. Sekhar ... Petitioner / Accused-4 Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector of Police, DCB Vellore, Vellore District.
... Respondent [Cr. No.11 of 2022] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner / Accused in Cr. No.11 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. Nirmal Krishnan For Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate [Criminal side]
ORDER
The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 1/6
471, 420, 506(1) and 120-B of IPC in connection with the case in Cr. No.11 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 had falsely represented to the defacto complainant that he would obtain a job for the defacto complainant's sister and brother-in-law in Railways department and received a sum of Rs.16,50,000/- and produced a fake joining letter containing forged seals and thus, committed the offence of cheating. It is the further case of the prosecution that the petitioner is the daughter of A1 and she promised to return the money due to the defacto complainant and thereafter, when asked, she along with other accused, threatened the defacto complainant.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that the alleged transactions took place between the years 2018 and 2022; that FIR was registered on 25.10.2022; that A1 was arrested and released on bail; that the petitioner had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the defacto complainant, which 2/6
would satisfy the part of the claim amount; that she also paid a sum of Rs.4 lakhs and that in any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and hence prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, confirmed the fact that the petitioner is the daughter of the 1st accused and since the 1st accused is due to pay money to the defacto complainant, she had executed a Sale Deed in favour of the defacto complainant and paid a portion of the due amount.
5. Considering the aforesaid facts and nature of allegations, the fact that the 1st accused, who had allegedly deceived the defacto complainant, was arrested and released on bail, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, this Court is inclined to grant 3/6
anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent Police or the Police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further conditions that: [a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity. [b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or 4/6
trial;
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560]; and [f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
26.03.2025 mjs SUNDER MOHAN. J., mjs To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi.
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 3.The Inspector of Police, DCB Vellore, Vellore District. 5/6
26.03.2025 6/6