Madras High CourtCRL OP/24941/2021dismissed

R.Devi v. State Rep By

2021-12-20Honourable Mr Justice M.Dhandapani2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of December Two Thousand Twenty One PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.24941 of 2021 R.DEVI [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ] Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU [ RESPONDENT ] THROUGH THE THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, NAMAKKAL DISTRICT (CRIME NO.1/2019) For Petitioner : M/S DEEPANUDAY Advocate For Respondent : MR. S.BALAJI, 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 offence under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC, Section 5 of TN Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act 1997 r/w. Section 3, 4, 5 and 21 of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Ordinance Act 2019 in Crime 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 herein is arrayed as A5, who is the wife of A4. Believing the sugar coated words of A2, the defacto complainant and his family members invested a sum of Rs.12,57,000/- in the said company for which they received back only a sum of Rs.6,36,959/- by was of bonus and thereafter, the de-facto complainant has not received any amount from the company/A1. Thereafter on enquiry, the de-facto complainant came to know that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

and his family were cheated by the petitioner and the other accused persons. Hence, the law enforcing agency registered a case against the petitioner and other accused persons based on the complaint lodged by the de-facto complainant.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate submits that this is the 3rd anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner and this Court has already dismissed the earlier anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioner as the petitioner along with other accused persons collected a sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/- from many persons including the de-facto complainant promising that they will double the money collected from them and cheated about 163 innocent persons. It is further submitted that investigation is still going on. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the gravity of the offence and since there is no change of circumstances pointed out by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed.

-sd/- 20/12/2021 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, ECONOMIC 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.24941/2021 Date :20/12/2021 RW 30/12/2021 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/