Sahaya Divya v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Eighteenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Four PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI SAHAYA DIVYA ... PETITIONER / ACCUSED 3 Vs THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
CR.NO.25/2023 ... RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : Mr.JERIN MATHEW, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.P.KOTTAICHAMY, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. PRAYER:- FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CRIME NO.25/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 420 and 120B of IPC, in Cr.No.25 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/3
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner's husband/A2 and the defacto complainant are friends. As per the prosecution, A1 was running JNF Trading Company, which was managed by the petitioner and her husband and A2 induced the defacto complainant to invest money in the said company. Therefore, the defacto complainant invested Rs.32,00,000/- on various occasions and the said company returned Rs.6,48,000/- to the defacto complainant and the balance amount of Rs.25,52,000/- was not returned. Hence, the case. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
In fact, the petitioner's husband/A2 and the defacto complainant are friends and the dispute is only between her husband and the defacto complainant, in which, the petitioner was falsely roped in in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that initially, the complaint was made by the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.6,48,000/- was paid and the balance amount of Rs.25,52,000/- was not paid and subsequently, there are huge complaints filed, as if the petitioner cheated more than Rs.4 crores and the investigation is in preliminary stage. He would further submit that the petitioner is having one previous case. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the facts that the quantum of amount involved in this case and the petitioner has one previous case and the investigation is in preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 18/03/2024 / TRUE COPY / /03/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar ( C.S. I / II / III / IV ) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
SJI TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, THOOTHUKUDI DISTRICT.
2 THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN Date :18/03/2024 SA/JGB/SAR. /22.03.2024/3P/3C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023. 3/3