Mounika v. The State Rep By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 31142 of 2025 Mounika
...Petitioner/A3
Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Namakkal District Crime No. 9 of 2025.
...Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.9 of 2025 on the file of respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. Komala K.
---
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468, and 409 of IPC in Crime No.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A3, working as field officer and also wife of A1, who was working in Pasumai Jothi Finance Service, Thiruchengode. Taking advantage of the position, this petitioner joined hands with other accused prepared bogus loan applications and swindled to the tune of Rs.1.5 Crore from the finance firm. In this regard, enquiry was conducted and found that this petitioner joining hands with other accused had actively involved in swindling money and A1 was also arrested in this case. Hence the complaint.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is the wife of A1, she has been falsely implicated in this case and the petitioner has not benefited from any of the transactions taken place between A1 and other staff members and since she is a field officer, she submitted applications based on the request made by the eligible persons. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Counsel for the Intervenor/De-facto Complainant submits that the accused have also enquired by the officials and it revealed that the petitioner herein as a field officer and submitted loan applications for granting loans to making bogus applications. He further submits that the petitioner herein along with other co-accused had disbursed a loan of Rs.43,00,000/-. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that totally 8 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is ranked as A3 and she has involved in misappropriation and other falsification of accounts and therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.On perusal of records, it reveals that though the petitioner was working as field officer, she has forged the signatures of the loan applicants and loans advanced were also misappropriated and the amount involved in this case of to the tune of Rs.1.5 Crore and A1 was arrested in this case and the entire swindled money has not been recovered from the accused.
7.Considering the above fact and the gravity of offence committed by the petitioner herein, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.11.2025 MSM 1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station Namakkal Crime No. 9 of 2025.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
MSM CRL OP NO. 31142 of 2025 24.11.2025