Lalitha v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 10.11.2020 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Crl.O.P.No.17825 of 2020 Lalitha ..Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by Inspector of Police CB-CID, Kanchipuram

...Respondent

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.2 of 2020 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmuga Thayumanavan For Respondent : Mr.T.Shunmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

(The case has been heard through video conference) The petitioner who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.09.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 409, 420, 34 of IPC read with 43 and 66C of the Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No.2 of 2020, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant is that the petitioner by producing forged documents availed income support under the Pradan Mandri Samman Nidhi Yojana Scheme which is implemented by the Government of India and cheated several lakhs of rupees.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioner is only a Data Entry Operator and she entered the data as per the information given by the Farmer and that she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that the being a lady has been suffering incarceration for 57 days from 15.09.2020. Hence, he prays for grant of bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police would vehemently oppose stating that the petitioner along with one Muthulakshmi who is an Agricultural Officer, had furnished 250 fake applications and received several lakhs of rupees from the Government and thereby, cheated the Government. He would submit that the investigation is at the initial stage. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. Taking into account the nature of offence and the fact that the investigation is at the initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 10/11/2020 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 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, PUZHAL, CHENNAI 2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

3 INSPECTOR OF POLCIE, CB-CID KANCHIPURAM CC to M/S N.SHANMUGA THAYUMANAVAN Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.17825/2020 Date :10/11/2020 RVR 01/12/2020 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/