Danny Amali Irudayanathan v. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 420 IPC r/w Sections 21 (3) and 23 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No.19 of 2022, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is only a Receptionist in the Company called "Guru Realities". She has nothing to do with the cheating alleged to have been committed by the other accused in this case. She was a salaried employee and she has no idea about what the other accused were doing. Thus, apprehending arrest, this petition is filed.

3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed this petition and submitted that accused in this case had collected huge money from various building owners, on the promise of leasing the buildings for fatty rent. In the said process, they collected

money from many persons, who approached them for leasing their premises. Later, the accused in this case had not paid the money to the building owners and cheated the building owners and also the lessees. Defacto complainant in this case was made to part with Rs.9,00,000/-. This amount was not paid to the building owners, Mr.Anis and Mrs.Sathyabharathi and it was pocketed by the accused in this case. 4.Petitioner's role in this case is that she joined as a tele-caller, became a Receptionist and then became the Personnel Secretary to the accused Solaimuthu Raja. She had taken major decisions of the Company, handled the financial transactions of the Company and canvassed the house owners/tenants/lessees and induced them to enter into rental/lease agreement by giving exaggerated and false promises on behalf of the main accused A2 in the offences alleged in the prosecution case.

5.In the light of the facts obtained from the FIR allegations,

submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the specific role attributed to the petitioner and that total money said to have been cheated by the accused in this case is about Rs.17,26,73,936/- from 252 lessees and 67 house owners, that the money is not recovered so far, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail for the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 27.07.2023 sli

G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.

J.

sli 27.07.2023