Ranganayahi v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.01.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA Ranganayaki ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - Avadi City, Avadi.

In Crime No.125 of 2024 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on Anticipatory Bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.125 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Govindarajan For Respondent :

Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.125 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of IPC, the present petition has been filed seeking anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the defacto complainant

Gayathiri is that her husband and the first accused were colleagues and known to each other. It is alleged that the first accused along with his mother and friends had introduced the defacto complainant's husband to invest 1.8 Crores, on the assurance to induct him as a business partner and later cheated him. Hence, the 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 an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that the petitioner, other than being the mother of A1 has no role in the case.

4. The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent is that the petitioner is the mother of A1. A1 had introduced the defacto complainant to other accused and made him to invest a huge sum of money to the tune of Rs.1.8 Crores and later cheated him. Hence, he oppose for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit that the

petitioner is the mother of A1. A1 along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1.8 Crores. The entire transaction has been done through the petitioner's bank account and she is well aware of the transactions.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the Intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03.01.2025 (1⁄2) mn A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.,J.

mn

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - Avadi City, Avadi.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

03.01.2025