Kaliammal, v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Friday, the Twelfth day of August Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.14712 of 2016 KALIAMMAL ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 Vs THE STATE REP.BY , THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD, CRIME NO. 42 OF 2015 ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S.A.UTHAYAKUMAR 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 No.2, apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the offneces punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, in Crime No.42 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and two others promised to arrange the job in the Government Hospital and received a sum of Rs.8,45,000/- from the de-facto complainant. But, they did not arrange the job and return the amount. When the de-facto complainant demanded them for refund of amount, she threatened him with dire consequences. On complaint, a case has been registered for the abovesaid offences.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is the wife of A1 and she did not receive any amount as alleged by the prosecution. Her husband was arrested and released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramnad, in Crl.M.P.No.2611 of 2015, vide order dated 20.10.2015. After registration of the FIR, her husband was arrested by the respondent police, during that time, her signature was forcibly obtained in the blank papers, as if she agreed to return the said amount to one Murugan and due to that, she https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
was forced to return Rs.1,50,000/- to him. Thereafter, she was constantly threatened by the said Murugan. She neither received the amount nor known to the said Murugan as alleged by the respondent police.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submitted that this is a case of job-racketing and on promising to get a job, the petitioner and other accused persons cheated the de-facto complainant. He further submitted that A1 was arrested and he is in judicial custody. The earlier petitions filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.23957 of 2015 and 8371 of 2016 were dismissed on 06.01.2016 and 20.06.2016 respectively and now, there is no change of circumstance.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner and suppression of fact that the earlier petitions filed by the petitioner for anticipatory bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.23957 of 2015 and 8371 of 2016 were dismissed on 06.01.2016 and 20.06.2016 respectively and now, there is no change of circumstance, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 12/08/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, RAMNAD.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECTUOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
SMN2 CSL/SS-3/SAR-I/22.08.2016: 2P/3C
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.14712 of 2016 Date :12/08/2016 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/