I. Mary Padma v. The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL OP NO. 15759 of 2025 1.Mary Padma 2.David Mariya Nayagam Petitioners Vs The State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police, R-1, Mambalam police Station, Chennai.

(Crime no. 73/2025) Respondent(s) For Petitioners:

Mr.R.Dinesh For Respondent(s):

Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 316(2), 318(2) of BNS in connection with Crime No.73 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

1/6

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is a physically challenged person and she received information that the petitioners/accused conducted a campaign for helping senior citizens and physically challenged persons. In which scholarships and two wheelers were given for disabled persons. The petitioners informed the defacto complainant that they are running trust viz., Maharaja Trust at Chengalpattu. They are getting welfare funds from other countries and advised the defacto complainant to join to enroll membership. Believing the words of the petitioners the defacto complainant referred their friends around 40 members and they joined the trust in which the petitioners promised a salary of Rs.10,000/- for physically challenged and Rs.9,000/- for normal people and Rs.16,000/- for graduates.

The petitioners have collected Rs.10,000/- in advance and promised a person pay Rs.100/- get a scholarship of Rs.1,000/- and a person paying Rs.5,100/- per month would get a scholarship of Rs.1,80,000/- by way of scholarship. The parties need to give Rs.20,000/- for the growth of trust. Thereafter, physically challenged persons, widows and senior citizens joined and paid Rs.100/- to Rs.5,100/- as instructed by the petitioners through the account of defacto complainant who is the employee. The money was transferred to the account of petitioners.

was given to the depositors and petitioners have given salary for one month and thereafter not paid for anything. The petitioners have not paid scholarship to any person and when the defacto complainant inquired the same, the petitioners informed that funds are coming from another country and therefore he/she should wait. The defacto complainant having been cheated by the petitioners. Hence, the complaint. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He would submit that the petitioners have settled an amount for the victims and employees and bank transaction has been submitted. Therefore, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners 4.

Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is in progress and several valuable documents have to be secured through bank and witnesses to be examined. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned 3/6

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record including the FIR. 6.

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case and the petitioners have cheated several innocent persons, senior citizens and physically challenged persons and received huge amount of funds from them in the name of giving scholarship and other welfare measures. The petitioners have used the defacto complainant as a tool to achieve their ends and swindled huge amount of money from innocent persons which cannot be taken lightly. Even in this application the petitioners have stated that they have settled the amount to the victims and employees which clearly proves that the petitioners have committed offence. In the above circumstances, this is not a fit case for granting anticipatory bail. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7.

Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 14.07.2025 4/6

gbi To 1.The Inspector Of Police, R-1, Mambalam police Station, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., gbi Crl.O.P. No.15759 of 2025 14.07.2025 6/6