Mrs.Lakshmi v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by:

Inspector of Police, SRMC Police Station, Porur.

Crime No. 197 of 2025.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.197 of 2015 pending investigation on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Ramesh for Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to the Judicial Custody on 19.05.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 308(2) of the BNS, 2023 in connection with the Crime No. 197 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.05.2025, based on the 1/6

complaint given by the de-facto complainant, a case was registered. The de-facto complainant is a doctor working in Cloud Nine Hospital, T. Nagar, Chennai. She, her mother, and her brother reside at Porur, and the said house belongs to them. The ground floor portion was rented to one Venkatesan for the past three years, and he recently defaulted in rent payment. In April 2025, the complainant and her father went to demand rent. The first accused, Venkat Acharya, who is known to the complainant's father and is an advocate, advised them to record the conversation with the tenant for safety. Thereafter, he informed them that the tenant might take action against them for recording, and he demanded money to resolve the issue. He further instructed the complainant and her father to cooperate with certain persons, including Gnanam @ D.

GnanaSekar (claiming to be an advocate) and one Daniel. Believing the same, they paid about Rs. 4 lakhs on 16th and 18th April in three instalments. Later, more amounts were demanded. They paid by pledging their jewels and also obtained money from Burma Bazaar, as instructed by A1. One Lakshmi was also involved as a conduit and was handed money on two occasions, April 20 and 23. In total, Rs. 35 lakhs was paid. Later, they were threatened to pay an additional Rs. 2 crores by selling jewels kept in their bank locker. Upon suspicion, the complainant realised that A1 was dealing in hawala transactions and that tenant Venkatesan was also involved.

complaint was given.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in continuation to the order passed by this Court on 03.07.2025, the petitioner was employed as a clerk in A1 office. A1 is the person managing the business. As per the directions and instructions of A1, she would act. She is employed for Rs.20,000 per month. What transaction happened between A1 and the de-facto complainant is not known to her. Only on the instructions of A1, the petitioner went to the house of the de-facto complainant and collected a bag. The contents of the bag were not known to her. She has been in prison for 53 days, and hence bail may be granted.

4. The learned counsel for the de-facto complainant submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, especially A1 and A2, joined together in the commission of the offence. Specifically, Rs.17 lakhs was collected near Prestige Polygon, Teynampet, which is a residential-cum-office complex. The petitioner had come there and enquired with the de-facto complainant whether the bag contained Rs. 17 lakhs. After confirming the same, only then she received the bag and went inside. She was also given specific instructions to stay outside the gate and not to enter the complex, this was done only to avoid being caught. Thus, 3/6

in a well-planned manner, the accused committed the offence, and now the petitioner attempts to wriggle out by stating she was merely an employee.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that CCTV footage has been collected from Prestige Polygon, the service apartments and also from the office of the de-facto complainant and her family. Evidence regarding the collection of money on various dates has been gathered. A1, the prime accused, is absconding and a Look Out Circular has been issued. The investigation is at a crucial stage. If granted bail, there are chances of the petitioner creating obstacles to the investigation and erasing evidence. Further, the de-facto complainant's paternal uncle confirms that one Vanitha Lakshmi knew A1 and introduced him to the de-facto complainant. She was aware of A1 acting as an advocate in the tenant eviction matter at Porur. A1 later developed his own connection and committed the present offence. Therefore, bail may not be granted.

6. In view of the above facts and submissions, considering the role attributed to the petitioner and that the investigation is at a crucial stage and the prime accused is absconding, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the 4/6

petitioner.

11.07.2025 nsl M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

5/6

nsl To

1. Inspector of Police, SRMC Police Station, Porur.

Crime No. 197 of 2025.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No. 17990 of 2025 11.07.2025 6/6