A.Ramalakshmi v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 25.09.2020

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.13423 of 2020 A.Ramalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep.by ... Respondent The Inspector of Police, Economic Offences Wing-II, Chennai.

(Crime No.08 of 2015) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 438 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.08 of 2015 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Ramkumar For Respondent : Mr.V.Balamurugane Additional Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

ORDER

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and r/w.120(B) of IPC and Section 5 of the Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act,1997 Crime No.08 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with the other directors collected money from the general public under the various schemes, on the assurance to repay a higher rate of interest Based on such assurance, the defacto complainant deposited the money. Thereafter, the petitioner along with the other accused cheated more than 21 victims to the tune of Rs.4,47,68,000/-. Hence the compliant.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and the petitioner is an employee of the said company other than that he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against him. Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) submitted that the petitioner is one of the directors of the company, apart from that the petitioner was also managing the day to day affairs of the company. He further submitted that the case is in the initial stage of the investigation and also several complaints are received from the victims. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Taking into consideration the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels and the petitioner is the Managing director of the company, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 25/09/2020 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, ECONOMIC OFFENCES WING-II, CHENNAI.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR PUDUCHERRY.

CC to M/S.T.RAMKUMAR Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.13423/2020 Date :25/09/2020 TA-07/10/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/