Shahnaz Parveen v. State Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN Shahnaz Parveen ..Petitioner Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Udhagamandalam Cyber Crime Police station, The Nilgiris.
Crime No.12 of 2024.
..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to pass an order enlarging the petitioners on anticipatory bail, in the event of her arrest in the above C.C.No.181 of 2025 in Crime No.12 of 2024 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam. For Petitioner:
Mr.Shaikh M Muzzammil For Respondent:
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita r/w 66D of Information Technology Act in Crime No.12 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant on seeing a WhatsApp group titled "Share India Securities Group" which was projected as a SEBI Registered company, joined the group and based on the representation made, invested money in stock trading. Initially, he received certain profits and thereafter, on further inducement, transferred a total sum of Rs.50,80,000/- to various accounts. Subsequently, when he was asked to pay additional commission to withdraw the profit, he realised that it was a fraudulent scheme and lodged a complaint alleging a total loss of Rs.45,00,000/-. Hence, the present FIR came to be registered.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A3 in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and has absolutely no role in the alleged offence. The petitioner is only being implicated on the basis of certain bank account transactions, without any material to establish her involvement in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and that two of the accused in this case have already been released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ooty, as per the order in C.M.P. No. 49 of 2025 dated 27.02.2025. Therefore, he prayed to grant 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 submitted that, as per the NCRP records, there are about 30 complaints against the petitioner. He further submitted that there is no change in the circumstances.
5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and taking note of the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) that there is no change in circumstances after the dismissal of the petitioner's earlier anticipatory bail application, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30-04-2026 SHL To
1. The Inspector of Police, Udhagamandalam Cyber Crime Police station, The Nilgiris.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
SHL 30-04-2026