Sandhiya v. State By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.28816 of 2025 Sandhiya ... Petitioner/ A2 Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, EOW, Economic Offences, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 083.

(Crime No.21 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in Crime No.21 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr. S.S.Santhosa Kumar For Respondent :

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420 IPC, 5 of TNPID (In Financial Establishment) Act 1997 in Crime No.21 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/8

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A3 in this case and she joined hands with other accused who is husband of the petitioner ranked as A2 involved in leasing out the properties of the defacto complainant and failed to return back the money and thereby misappropriated to the extent of Rs.4.30 crores. Hence the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the year 2022 itself, GST number to pay the tax was already transferred in the name of A2/petitioner's husband and she has not collected any money after 2022. He further submitted that A2-petitioner's husband has already been released on bail. Therefore, he prays for grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that the petitioner is also one of the main accused in this case, she joined with her husband, involved in the offences alleged. Further, she alone separately 2/8

executed 74 lease under Rental Agreements and collected a sum of Rs.3.70 lakhs and the funds were also transferred to bank accounts by way of transfers and also Rs.1 crore were collected by way of cash. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have gone through the FIR and other connected materials, which revealed that this petitioner joined hands with other accused collected a sum of Rs.4.30 crores. Though it is stated that GST number was transferred in favour of A2 petitioner's husband, the transactions taken place in this case was prior to 2023 which includes in the year 2021. Hence, I am of the view that said contention of seeking bail is not valid, however considering the fact that the petitioner is a lady and all these transactions were covered by various documents and it is also stated that the petitioner is having a special child and already the main accused/A2 has already been arrested and released on mandatory bail, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

3/8

6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned TNPID Court, Chennai, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions:

(a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for 4/8

interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

24.11.2025 mpa 5/8

To 1.TNPID Court, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, EOW, Economic Offences, Ashok Nagar, Chennai - 600 083.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 6/8

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

mpa 7/8

24.11.2025 8/8