Geetha v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-12-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Geetha Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police Entrusted Document Fraud-1, Central Crime Branch, Team VI, Tambaram City, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
in Crime No. 119 of 2022 Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime. No. 119 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.
For Petitioner:
M/s.Raji For Respondent(s):
Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w & 120(B) & 506(ii) of IPC, in Crime No.119 of 2022 on the file of the
respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A3 in this case have induced the defacto complainant company to pay a sum of Rs.9 Crores for the purpose of getting investment for a sum of Rs.30 Crores. However, after collecting a sum of Rs.9 Crores, the petitioner has failed to deposit the money and further they have also issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.6.5 crores and subsequently it was revealed that those bank accounts are not operating. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was served with summons under Sections 41 A of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of enquiry in this case and she has also appeared and she was not aware about the various allegations levelled in the FIR and she is not an associate of A1 to A3 in this case and prays grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reported that though it is stated in the FIR that the petitioner is not an associate of A1 to A3, the petitioner's cheque was used for the purpose of repaying the money collected by A1 to A3 and hence the petitioner was asked to appear and she has also appeared and however she opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5.Considering the nature of the allegations levelled in this case and further that A1, A2 and A4 were arrested and released on bail and that the case was registered in the year 2022, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:
6.Accordingly, the petitioner are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:
(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;
[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283]; e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 09-12-2025 gbi
To 1.The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police Entrusted Document Fraud-1, Central Crime Branch, Team VI, Tambaram City, Sholinganallur, Chennai-600 119.
in Crime No. 119 of 2022 2.The Judicial magistrate-I, Tambaram.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gbi CRL OP No. 33620 of 09-12-2025