Sharon Roase Samuel v. State Rep. By

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 420, 406 of IPC, Section 3 and 5 of the Banking of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act 2019 and Section 58(B)(1) of Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 in Crime No.7 of 2022 and the above case has been committed and C.C.No.9 of 2023 was assigned and the same is pending before the TNPID Special Court, Chennai, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.It is the case of the prosecution that the accused A9 to A16 had started a company for the purpose of trading in precious metals by name M/s.Aarudhra Gold Trading Pvt. Ltd., in the year 2021 and registered in Registrar of Companies.

Contrary to the actual objectives of the company, they conspired among themselves to collect deposits without obtaining mandatory permission from the Reserve Bank of India and started collecting deposits from the public under the false promise of paying exorbitant interest for which Additional Directors/Managers/Agents including the petitioner/A28. Naveen had been inducted for deposits collection in all the branches of Aarudhra Gold Trading Private Limited.

cash in the name of incentives and level income which are otherwise called as brokerage/Commission for their performance in the collection of deposits. Petitioner herein is the friend of Rajasekar - A9, the Managing Director of accused company and she even involved in the web designing and content writing for the websites of accused companies from the year of 2020. Hence the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that only because of the car kept by Rajasekar in her apartment she was targeted and continuously enquired, she also cooperated on all occasions. The petitioner had no contact with any of the Arudhra People and had not involved in any crime. She undertakes to co-operate for the investigation and she will not tamper the evidence. She will never abscond or evade the trial. Hence he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the matter is under investigation.

2/5

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the 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 the case is at initial stage and it needs detailed investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. The petitioner is directed to co-operate for investigation. 28.06.2024 ah 3/5

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

ah 4/5

28.06.2024 5/5