Ramya Sherin v. The State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Ramya Sherin ... Petitioner /Accused Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W-II, Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore District.

... Respondent/ Complainant Crime No.7 of 2019 Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in Crime No.7 of 2019 by the respondent police. For petitioner : Mr.B.Thirumalai For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 of IPC, Page No.1 of 6

Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1998 and Sections 3 and 5 r/w 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, in Crime No.7 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/ accused, by running a business in the name and style of "M/s. Vinn Wealth International," fraudulently collected money from the defacto complainant by falsely promising returns. The defacto complainant was assured that purchasing diamond jewellery for Rs. 20,000/- would yield Rs. 1,600/- per week for 25 weeks, leading him to deposit Rs. 1,60,000/-. However, the petitioner/ accused failed to return the money. Hence, the case.

3. This court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner through an order dated 25.02.2021 with a condition that the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the credit of Crime No.7 of 2019, before the learned Special Judge, Special Court under TNPID Act, Coimbatore. However, the petitioner had failed to comply with this condition and Page No.2 of 6

subsequently sought anticipatory bail for the second time before this Court. This Court had dismissed the said application on the ground that a second anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable, as the petitioner had not executed sureties.

4. This court is of the view that a third anticipatory bail on the very same grounds is not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.

6. In such circumstances, this court is not inclined to entertain the petition. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file appropriate petition for modification.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 10.03.2025 Page No.3 of 6

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Internet: Yes/No skr Page No.4 of 6

SUNDER MOHAN, J.

skr To

1. The Inspector of Police, E.O.W-II, Coimbatore Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Page No.5 of 6

10.03.2025 Page No.6 of 6