Veeralakshmi v. The State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-11-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Veeralakshmi W/o.Balamurugan, No.107, G/1, Elite Enclave, Elangovadigal Street, Senthil Nagar, Thirumullaivoyal, Chennai - 600 062.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Chennai.
Cr.No.15 of 2024 Respondent(s) PRAYER To enlarge the petitioner/Accused on bail pending trial in C.C.No.11 of 2024 on the file of the Learned Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai. For Petitioner(s):
Mr. N.Sudharsan For Respondent(s):
Mr. A.Gopinath, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/6
ORDER
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 28.08.2024 for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 409, 420 I.PC.. r/w Sec.5 of Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, in Crime No. 15 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the wife of A3, who was a partner in Sun Homes Property Management and Development Firm and she along with other accused have took house for rent from 168 house owners and sublet them on lease and had received a sum to the tune of Rs.6,35,475/-. Thereafter, the accused cheated them and misappropriated the amount and they did not pay the rent amount to the house owners and lease amount to the lessee, thereby cheated both house owners and lessees as well as defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is only a proprietor of the firm and she has been falsely implicated in this case as if she along with other accused cheated more than 168 depositors by collecting amount to the tune of Rs.6,35,05,475/- by giving a false promise for subletting the house property, but she is no way connected with the case and she has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and he is no way 2/6
connected with the offence as alleged by the respondent police. He would submit that the investigation is almost completed and she would abide by any condition that may be imposed by this court and she is in judicial custody from 28.08.2024 for more than one year. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner along with other accused have taken house for rent and sublet them on lease and collected amount to the tune of Rs.6 crores and misused the same and did not pay rent amount to the house owners as well as lease amount. He would submit that so far, no amount was recovered and final report was filed. He would submit that if he is released on bail, he would tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.
5. On seeing the facts, it reveals that the petitioner along with other accused cheated more than 168 depositors by collecting amount to the tune of Rs.6,35,05,475/- by giving a false promise to give property for subletting them on lease, but they misused the same and did not pay the rent to the house owners and lease amount to the lessee, thereby they cheated both the house owners and lessees, thereby the petitioner has actively participated in the offence. Considering that and considering the facts and circumstances of the 3/6
case and the submissions made by both counsel, considering the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner by collecting huge amount and misused the same and cheated more than 168 depositors, also the fact that investigation completed and final report is yet to be filed and as on date, no recovery was made and at this stage if she is released on bail, she may abscond and there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation. 5.
Considering the facts, nature of offence and the fact that this Court has dismissed the earlier bail applications filed by the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9950 of 2025 on 05.08.2005, Crl.O.P.No.25704 of 2025 on 18.09.2025 and Crl.O.P.No.24973 of 2025 on 11.09.2025 and there is no change in circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
6.
Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 13-11-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes smn 4/6
To
1. Special Court under TNPID Act, Chennai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5/6
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
smn CRL OP No. 30946 of 13-11-2025 6/6