A.Dharani v. The State By

Crl.O.P.No.16285 of 2024 T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioners, who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.06.2024, in Crime No.68 of 2024, registered for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 408, 420 and 477A of IPC, seek bail.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case, as if the petitioners misappropriated the defacto complainant's company account by creating a fake bill, giving fake receipt and fabricated the receipt for more than 1 crore 4 lakhs from their employees. He further submitted that the date of alleged occurrence as per the complaint is from 1.1.2018 to 31.12.2023, but the complaint was lodged belatedly on 02.04.2024. He further submitted that the customers have transferred the amount to the G-pay account of the first petitioner only at the instruction of the defacto complainant and she handed over the same to the defacto complainant. There is a due of Rs.15 lakhs to be payable to the defacto complainant and it was repaid by the petitioners, and it is only a false case foisted against the petitioners. He further

submitted that the petitioner is suffering incarceration from 13.06.2024 and he is ready to abide any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioners.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the petitioners are the employees of the defacto complainant's company and they received amount from the customer of the defacto complainant in their G-pay account and swindled the company fund to the tune of Rs.1 crore 4 lakh. He further submitted that on enquiry, the petitioners have admitted their guilt and paid a sum of Rs.8 lakhs and also given jewels weighing 92 grams and however, the balance amount is yet to be received. He further furnished the G-pay accounts of the petitioners to prove the amount received by them. He further submitted that the investigation is at the initial stage and if the petitioner is released on bail, he may tamper with the witnesses. Hence, strongly opposed for granting bail to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials available on record.

5. Considering the gravity of the offence and the manner of offence committed and the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and also considering the fact that the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

10.07.2024 drl

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

drl Crl.O.P.No.16285 of 2024 10.07.2024