Kalyani v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 109, 34 of IPC r/w Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 and Section 21(3), 22, 23, 24, 25 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS) Act, 2019, in Crime No.21 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused induced the defacto complainant and others by giving false promise and assurance of returning excess interest for their money and made them to deposit money in their firm M/s. Hijau Associates Private Limited. Later, by giving interest to the investors for few months, cheated them by not returning back even their deposited amount. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is also one among the depositors who have made

huge deposits in the said firm. He also submitted that the petitioner is no way connected with the alleged offence and she has been made as a scape goat in this transaction. He also stated that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner (A20), who was well aware of the criminal intent and the modus of fraud, along with the other accused have cheated the de-facto complainant and other investors under the guise of giving excess interest for the money they have deposited. He further submitted that as per the investigation nearly about 400 complaints were received and about more then Rs.600 crores were involved. He also stated the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is needed in this case and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, there is a possibility of tampering the evidence. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and considering the gravity of the offence and also taking note of the fact that this case needs detailed investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 03.01.2023 ham

T.V.THAMILSELVI,J.

ham 03.01.2023