R. Dhanalakshmi v. The State By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.04.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. R. Dhanalakshmi W/o. K. Ravikrishnan

2. I. Kondal Rao S/o. Issac ... Petitioners/Accused 14 & 16 Vs.

The State represented byThe Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Vellore, Vellore District.

(Crime No.2 of 2018).

... Respondent 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.2 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Duraimurugan Muniraj For Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/5

respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406, 120-B of IPC read with Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 in connection with the case in Cr. No.2 of 2018, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that the petitioners/A14 & A16 had run a Company in the name and style of M/s.Royal Agro & Diary Limited and cheated 9000 depositors to the tune of Rs.27 Crores. Based on the complaint filed by the depositors, a case was registered by the respondent police in Crime No.2 of 2018. Subsequently, investigation has been completed and final report has also been filed and the case has been taken up for trial in C.C.No.02 of 2022 on the file of TNPID Court, Chennai.

3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons; that they have been falsely implicated in this case; that they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that co-accused have been arrested and released on bail; that the A12 & A15 were already granted anticipatory bail and prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 2/5

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions submitted that the petitioners had earlier filed Crl.OP.No.13021 of 2024; that this Court had granted interim bail on the condition that they should deposit Rs.5 Lakhs each to the credit of C.C.No.02 of 2022; that later when the matter was taken up for hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners and hence, the Criminal Original Petition was dismissed on 04.07.2024; and that the petitioners had not complied with the condition imposed in the interim order.

5. Since the petitioners had earlier obtained interim bail on the condition to deposit Rs.5 Lakhs each and as they have not complied with the condition, the earlier petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, this Court is not inclined to entertain this 2nd anticipatory bail petition. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

01.04.2025 mjs To 3/5

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Vellore, Vellore District. SUNDER MOHAN., J.

mjs 01.04.2025 4/5

5/5