K.Sujitha v. The State Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-02-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI K.Sujitha Petitioner/A2 Vs State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police, Central Crime Branch-II, Chennai, Crime No. 21 of 2023.
Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition is filed u/s.482 of BNSS Act, 2023 seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No. 21 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.P. Vijendran For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Meganathan Government Advocate [Criminal Side] ---
ORDER
The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC, in Crime No.21 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant was working as Income Tax/GST Consultant. He purchased a vacant house site from A3-Deivanai on 19.04.2017 by pledging his wife jewels of Rs.84,98,400/- and the remaining amount of Rs.40,00,000/- availed from Axis Bank loan as total sale consideration of Rs.1,25,50,000/- and the same was registered before the Sub Registrar Office, Madhavaram by way of Doc.No. 1998/2017. Thereafter, some unknown persons were put up a wall around the vacant house site of the de-facto complainant. Hence the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police against the petitioners/A1 to A3. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are an innocent persons and they have not committed any such offences as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are none other than husband and wife. The 2nd petitioner was studying BSMS in Sairam Medical Institute. Therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent opposed for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2/4
stating that the de-facto complainant had purchased a house site property by pledging his wife jewels and availed loan from Axis Bank to the tune of Rs.1,25,50,000/. Now, the de-facto complainant was unable to repay the loan amount borrowed from the Axis Bank and SURFAESI proceedings initiated against the de-facto complainant because the property stands in the name of some third party. He further submitted that four previous cases are pending against the first petitioner herein. Therefore, custodial interrogation is required in this case and there is no change in circumstances and no amount has been recovered from the petitioners A1 and A2 and he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners herein.
5.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), and there is no change in circumstances and no amount has been recovered from the petitioners 1&2, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/A2.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13-02-2025 MSM 3/4
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
MSM 13.02.2025 4/4