R.Devi v. State Rep By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Wednesday, the Seventeenth day of November Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.20772 of 2021 R.DEVI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT ] THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONIMIC OFFENCE WING-II, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT CRIME NO.1 OF 2019.

For Petitioner : M/S. DEEPANUDAY Advocate For Respondent : MR.S.SUGENDRAN, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishment) Act, 1997 read with Section 3,4,5 and 21 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Orignance Act, 2019 in Cr.No.1 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that there are seven accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A5, who is the wife of A4.

Believing the words of A2, Senthilkumar, Managing Director of the Money Deal Trading Solutions, the defacto complainant and his family members invested a sum of Rs.12,57,000/- in the said company, for which, they received only a sum of Rs.6,36,959/- by ways of bonus and thereafter, the defacto complainant had not received any money from A1/company. On enquiry, the defacto complainant came to know that he and his family were cheated. Hence, the Law Enforcing Agency registered a case against the petitioner and other accused persons.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submit that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and he further submitted that a fase case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl side) submits that the petitioner and other accused is said to have collected a sum of Rs.8 Crores by making promise doubling the money from the innocent persons and thereby, they cheated. In this transaction, a sum of Rs.6 Crores have been credited in the petitioner's account and totally there are 163 victims suffered in this case. Hence, , he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the fact that there was a transaction that a sum of Rs.6 Crores was credited in petitioner's account in respect of this case and there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

-sd/- 17/11/2021 This order, on being produced, be punctually observed and carried into execution by all concerned TRUE COPY Sub-Assistant Registrar (Statistics/C.S.) High Court, Madras - 600 104.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONIMIC OFFENCE WING-II, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT.

2 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT, MADRAS.

CC to M/S. DEEPANUDAY Advocate on payment of necessary charges CRL OP.20772/2021 Date :17/11/2021 JPA 25/11/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/