Kavitha v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24/03/2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SAKTHIVEL Kavitha ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Kallaperambur Police Station, Thanjavur District.
Crime No. 14/2025 ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, Additional Public Prosecutor PRAYER :- For Anticipatory bail in Crime No. 14/2025 on the file of the Respondent-Police ORDER : The Court made the following order :- This Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitioner on 04.02.2025 under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, praying to 1/4
grant pre-arrest bail.
2. The petitioner / Accused No.4 apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent-Police for the offences punishable under Section 318 (4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.14 of 2025, on the file of the respondent-Police.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is the Managing Director of Kasisaras Finance Company, conducted an audit on 07.01.2025. During the audit, he found that the petitioner along with other accused had pledged spurious jewels and cheated a sum of Rs.16,31,000/-. Hence, the complaint.
4. Mr.C.Senthil Murugan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He however submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He therefore prays for granting pre-arrest bail to the petitioner herein.
5. Per contra, Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-police, submits that the petitioner along with other accused had pledged spurious gold in the Finance Company and cheated to the tune of Rs.16,31,000/-. He further submits that if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, she may commit the similar offence again. He further submits that the investigation 2/4
has not yet been completed and hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for the investigating agency to unearth the truth. Therefore, he prays to dismiss this Criminal Original Petition.
6. Heard on both sides. This Court has perused the records.
7. Considering the nature of offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that the investigation of this case has not been completed and therefore, at this stage, if pre-arrest bail is granted to the petitioner, she may abscond and delay the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that custodial interrogation of the investigating agency to unearth the truth. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. sd/- 24/03/2025 / TRUE COPY / /04/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.I/ II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TSG 3/4
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KALLAPERAMBUR POLICE STATION, THANJAVUR DISTRICT.
2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.2361 of 2025 Date :24/03/2025 PP//SAR-(15.04.2025) 4P 3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 4/4