Vanitha v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Twentieth day of June Two Thousand Sixteen PRESENT The Hon`ble Ms.Justice V.M.VELUMANI CRL OP(MD) No.9673 of 2016 VANITHA ... PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.3 Vs STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, MADURAI DISTRICT, CR NO. 7 OF 2015. ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT For Petitioner : M/S S.POORNA CHANDRAN Advocate For Respondent : MR.P.KANNITHEVAN, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C.

ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.3, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 05.04.2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC and Section 5 of Tamil Nadu Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, in Crime No.7 of 2015, on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused are carrying on business in the name and style of "Jeevan Vaisya Agro Tech LLP" On their promise that they will give huge amount of interest, they insisted the defacto complainant to deposit amounts. The defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,53,000/-. The petitioner and others promised to return a sum of Rs.2,83,000/-. Subsequently, they failed to do so.

On complaint, case has been registered for the above said offences. 3.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is an innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The defacto complainant exaggerated the amounts. The petitioner collected only Rs.1,53,000/-. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that she is in judicial custody from 05.04.2016.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner and other accused persons were running a company in the name and style of "Jeevan Vaisya Agro Tech LLP" and collected huge amount from various persons on promise of giving high interest. The petitioner and other accused did not return the amounts on maturity. As on today, 579 complaints were received and total amount involved is more than 2 crores and 20 lakhs and every day, the respondent police received more complaints and investigation is at initial stage. A2, who was the Managing Director of the complaint, was granted anticipatory with condition to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- and subsequently, he did not comply the condition and he is absconding. On earlier occasion the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

petitioner filed Crl.O.P(MD)No.8189 of 2016 and this Court by the order dated 20.05.2016 dismissed the petition and now there is no change in circumstances. If the petitioner is enlarged on bail, she will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation.

5.Considered the rival submissions.

6.The petitioner and other accused received amounts from various persons on promise of giving huge interest and cheated them by not paying the maturity amount. A2 after enlarging the bail, he is absconding. Other accused are yet to be arrested. Investigation is yet to be completed.

7.Considering the serious nature of allegations and the earlier petition filed the petitioner was dismissed on 20.05.2016, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners. Hence, this petition is dismissed.

sd/- 20/06/2016 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON(WOMEN),MADURAI.

2 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE ECONOMIC OFFENCE WING-II, MADURAI DISTRICT.

THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT,MADURAI.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9673 of 2016 Date :20/06/2016 PA/GSV-PM/SAR II/28.06.2016/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/