Saradha v. State Rep By Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 22.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.18067 of 2025 R.Saradha, ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep by Sub Inspector of Police, Ranipet Police Station, Ranipet District.

(Cr.No.264 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.264 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : P.Manish For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.V.Kirubanandha

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 61(2), 316(5), 318(4), 49 of BNS 2023 in crime No.277 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that she was working in a finance company in various capacities and, along with other staff members, colluded with one another by forging documents, misusing the gold jewels pledged in other accounts, and by using spurious/fictitious gold, thereby misappropriating a sum of Rs.8,44,000/-. It is further alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that there was no misappropriation or falsification of records. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready to establish the same by producing appropriate documents. However, no such documents have been produced before this Court. It is also contended that the petitioner had joined the service only recently and was not aware of the alleged transactions. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that a huge amount has been swindled by the staff members of the finance company and that the investigation is still in progress. It was further submitted that the preliminary report reveals misappropriation of Rs.8,44,000/-, and therefore 2/4

opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that totally five accused are involved in this case. A1 has already been arrested and is in judicial custody. So far, no amount has been recovered and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and the fact that no amount has been recovered so far, this Court is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted, the petitioner may tamper with the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.10.2025 Vv To

1. The Inspector of Police, Arcot town Police Station, Ranipet District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.18067 of 2025 22.10.2025 4/4