Rahmathunisa v. The Inspector Of Police

Crl.O.P.No.2727 of 2016 K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.

The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B)m 109 IPC, in Crime No.1 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. According to the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with her son were running a travel agency in the name of AL Amanth Enterprises. They have collected a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- from six persons assuring to get employment in abroad. But subsequently, they have cheated them. The petitioner neither secured employment nor repaid the amount 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's son is working in abroad and the defacto complainant went to abroad for employment, but they cannot secured him and therefore, they were sent back. Further it is submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has nothing to do with the alleged offence, the petitioner is a lady and she may be granted anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) vehemently opposed the bail petition contending that the petitioner along with her son collected money from the innocent persons assuring them to get employment in abroad and therefore, she is not entitled for anticipatory

bail.

K.KALYANASUNDARAM,J.

kkd 5.Considering the allegations made against the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Kkd 01.03.2016 Crl.O.P.No.2727 of 2016