Sheeba Rani v. The State Rep By Its,
Crl.OP.No.13060 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
The petitioner, who apprehend arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 306 of IPC in connection with Crime No.79 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant's husband namely Saravanan who owned a pharmacy, borrowed Rs. 18,60,000/- from the petitioner's husband with interest for his business. Furthermore, he was allegedly threatened by the petitioner's husband to pay the interest and to participate in a 28 chit scheme, totaling around 4 Crores over a two year period. It is claimed that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2.5 Crores as the due amount and Rs.1 Crore as interest to the petitioner's husband. On 10.10.2022, due to the threat of the petitioner's husband, defacto complainant's husband attempted suicide and was admitted to the hospital from which he recovered. Following the incident on 05.12.2022, the defacto complainant and her husband went to the petitioner's house and handed over a sum of Rs. 28,00,000/-. Furthermore, 27.01.2023 the petitioner's husband entered into deceased Saravanan's shop and allegedly
threatened, abused and assaulted him to repay the due amount. A complaint was lodged regarding this incident. Subsequently, due to numerous problems defacto complainant's husband experienced anguish. However, on 01.03.2024 around 2 am he began vomiting and was found unconscious. He was immediately admitted to Hospital without responding to the treatment he passed away. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the wife of the first accused. Even in the FIR, the first accused name alone is mentioned and petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He is ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this Court. Therefore, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner and her husband threatened the deceased Saravanan to repay the demanded amount. Due to which, the defacto complainant's husband attempted suicide. Without responding to the treatment, the defacto complainant's husband passed away. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), though the deceased/defacto complainant's husband repaid the amount, the first and second accused demanded extraordinary rate of interest. At one occasion defacto complainant's husband committed suicide and admitted in the hospital where the petitioner and her husband came to the hospital and threatened. Even after repayment of loan, the deceased was threatened by the petitioner's husband. The petitioner also accompanied her husband in threatening the deceased and his family. It may require custodial interrogation. Already two times the deceased had attempted suicide because of the attitude of the petitioner and her husband. It needs detailed investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 06.06.2024
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
nsl 06.06.2024