Palammal v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Tuesday, the Fifth day of July Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.10924 of 2016 PALAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED Vs STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING,MADURAI DISTRICT, CR NO. 7 OF 2016. RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S A.RAJINI Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(b) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, in Crime No.

7 of 2016, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is a one of the functionaries of Madurai Great India Agro Tech Limited. The accused persons collected amount on promising to give high returns after 5 years and subsequently, they did not pay the maturity amount. A2 & A3 issued cheques to defacto complainant, which was dishonoured on presentation. On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences.

3.The case of the petitioner is that she is only a sleeping functionary and not aware of the transaction and she is no way connected with the offence committed by the other accused. The defacto complainant without negotiating for money, hurriedly lodged a complaint. The petitioner is 55 years old lady and suffering from illness. This petitioner and other accused will settle all the amount.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused on giving false promise of high returns, received huge amounts from general public and cheated them by not paying the amounts on maturity. The cheque issued by them were dishonoured. The petitioner is one of the Director. She is also actively participated in the activities of the company including https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

financial transactionn. The other accused persons are arrested and still in custody. Till today 73 complaints were received against the accused persons to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- and investigation is pending it has to be found out as how many depositors are cheated by the accused persons.

5.Considering the fact that in the finance company in which the petitioner is actively involved, failed to return the amounts on maturity to the depositers and other accused are still in custody, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/- 05/07/2016 / 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, MADURAI DISTRICT, 2 THE ADDL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.10924 of 2016 Date :05/07/2016 AA/KBM/SAR-III/22.7.2016/2p-3c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/