R.Sudha Maheswari v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Sixth day of October Two Thousand Seventeen PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI CRL OP(MD) No.13237 of 2017 1 R.SUDHA MAHESWARI 2 S.VANITHA ... PETITIONERS / ACCUSED 4 & 5 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING II, MADURAI Cr.No.10 of 2016 ... RESPONDENT For Petitioners : M/S.SP.VIJAYNIWAS Advocate For Respondent : Mr.K.Anbarasan, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioners/Accused Nos.4 and 5, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 406 and 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors (In Financial Establishment) Act, 1997, in Crime No.10 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that A1 is the Company, namely, VJL Dairies LLP, A2 and A3 are the Managing Partners of the said Company and collected deposits from the public, across the various Districts of Tamil Nadu, and failed to repay the maturity amount to the depositors. The petitioners who are A4 and A5 worked as Manager and Computer Operator and actively participated in the business transaction of A1 Company, and depositors deposited Rs.2,60,000/- in the account of first petitioner and Rs.4,31,000/- in the account of second petitioner. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered in Crime No.10 of 2016.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on earlier occasion i.e., 31.08.2017, this Court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2017 on condition to deposit Rs.2,60,000/- by the first petitioner/A4 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Rs.4,31,000/- by the second petitoner/A5 to the credit of Crime No.10 of 2016. But, the petitioner failed to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court due to inability to raise the funds. He further submitted that the petitioner are not even able to run their day-to-day life due to implication of charges against them and they do not have any financial support to raise the huge amount of deposit to the credit of Crime No.10 of 2016. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the state submitted that the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions already imposed by this Court dated 31.08.2017 in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.542 of 2017.

5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side), I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Anticipatory bail petition is dismissed with liberty to file appropriate petition before the appropriate Court.

sd/- 06/10/2017 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING II, MADURAI 2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.13237 of 2017 Date :06/10/2017 SM:RR-BS:SAR 2:23.10.2017:2P/3C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/