A M Tamilselvi Alias Selvi v. State Rep By , Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-02-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA and Crl.M.P.No.1314 of 2025 A M Tamilselvi Alias Selvi W/o Manickasundaram, 110-5, Aruvan Korai, Kolappallur, Erode.

Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep By, Inspector of Police T-20 KanathurPolice Station, Chennai, Crime No. 169 of 2024.

Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s):

William Shakesphere M. Dilipkumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Santhosh, Govt. Advocate (criminal Side)

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.169 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) & 318(4) of BNS, this petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, by giving fake gold cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.71 Lakhs. Hence, the present case.

3. Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false implication in the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely roped in this case. He would submit that the other accused have been arrested and a sum of Rs.33 Lakhs have been recovered from them and he also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the accused joined together and cheated the defacto complainant by giving spurious gold to the tune of Rs.71 Lakhs, out of which, 96.27 grams of gold and a sum of Rs.19,11,000/- by way of cash has been recovered from the arrested accused and a balance sum of Rs.44.5 Lakhs is yet to be recovered from the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

very much required in this case. Therefore, he oppose for grant of anticipatory bail.

5.The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that this is the second application for anticipatory bail and there is no change of circumstances and the accused had cunningly induced the defacto complainant by giving spurious gold and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.71,00,000/-. Further, he would also submit that there is no change of circumstances in this case warranting grant of anticipatory bail. 6.I have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7.This Court, taking into consideration of the fact that the petitioner is the person, who is holding cash of Rs.44,50,000/- and as custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required, had dismissed the earlier application for anticipatory bail.

A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.

sli 8.This Court is of the view of that there is no change of circumstances and in view of the same, this petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

12-02-2025 and Crl.M.P.No.1314 of 2025