S.Mythili v. State By
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 380 of IPC in Crime No.163 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.04.2023 at about 1.00 p.m., one unknown woman came to the defacto complainant's house with a two-wheeler and enquired his son and thereafter, she wants to saw the defacto complainant's gold jewel, hence the defacto complainant shown her gold jewel at that time her husband also present. Thereafter, the suspected woman demanded two banana leaves from the defacto complainant. The defacto complainant went to back side of her house at that time the suspected woman committed the theft of her gold jewels total weight about seven sovereigns and Rs.2000/- cash from her house. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that whenever for statistical purpose, the police are foisting a false case against the petitioner and hence, she has filed W.P.No.22477 of 2021 against the respondent and the same is pending before this Court. He would also submit that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed on her. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent stated that this petitioner is a habitual offender. The petitioner along with three of her family members went to the senior citizen's house and introduce themselves with the elder person in the home as if she is a student of the retired teacher or Headmaster of the school, where she studied. In the process, they indulged in "attention diversion tactics" and thereby committing theft inside the house of the senior citizens. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record.
6. On perusal of the case register produced by the learned Government Advocate on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Police (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) it is clear that the petitioner is having multiple number of cases namely in Dharmapuri District two cases, in Erode District one case, in Krishnagiri District one case, in Namakkal District two cases, in Salem one case, in Salem City ten cases, in Tirupathur and Tirupathur Taluk & Town eleven cases, in Tiruvannamalai District six cases, in Vellore District nine cases and in Villupuram District two cases and in total 45 cases of similar in nature.
7. I had an occasion to consider a similar modus operandi adopted by the very same person in Crl.O.P.No.17171 of 2023 and by an order dated 07.08.2023 dismissed the anticipatory bail. After hearing the submission of the Government Advocate and documents produced by the Tamil Nadu Police (Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems), I
find that the petitioner is involved in 45 cases of similar in nature. The modus operandi in all the cases appears to be same.
8. It is seen that the petitioner alleged is to have go along with two other person, who are primarily senior citizens and either of the person will be from the Education Department namely the School as a teacher or Headmaster and subsequently she will introduce herself as a student, who studied under him and gained the confidence and subsequently gained access to the home and by clever conversation, she diverted the attention and other two persons accomplish her committed theft and she suitably amend the introduction as if she is a Principal of the school,where the family members were studied. Hence, I find that the modus operandi adopted by the petitioner appears to be focusing upon the retired persons from Education Department and senior citizens retired from the schools. Hence, I find the petitioner is not entitled for indulgence of this court for grant of anticipatory bail.
9. Considering the nature and gravity of offence committed by
the petitioner and the matter is under investigation and taking into consideration the previous bad antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, since the recovery is also yet to be taken. Accordingly, the criminal original petition is dismissed.
08.08.2023 ata RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN , J.
ata 08.08.2023