Vatchala v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07/10/2020 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
1. Vatchala ... 1st Petitioner/Accused No.2
2. Sabitha
3. Shreenivasan ... 2nd & 3rd Petitioners/Rank Not Known Vs The State through The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Madurai City, Madurai District.
In Crime No. 53 of 2020. ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioners: M/s.S.Muniyandi, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No. 53 of 2020 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 420, 465, 467 and 468 of IPC., in Crime No.53 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the the first accused was while working as Manager in the Thangamayil Jewellery at Madurai. At that juncture, in the name of Thangamayil Jewellery under the Gold Secheme. They have published advidisement and collected deposits from the general public to the tune of Rs.38 lakhs. When the depositors approached the accused persons for 1/3
returning of amount they did not returned the amount cheated. Further, allegation is that the said Thangamayil Jewellery never circulated any scheme as circulated by A1 and A2. Hence, the complaint.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.
4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is arrayed as A2, who is none other than the wife of A1. She is never committed offence as alleged by the defacto complainant. Hence, he prayed to anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the State would submit that the totally there are three accused. The 1st petitioner is arrayed as A2. Insofar as the petitioners 2 & 3 concerned they are not arrayed as accused. A1 is working as Manager in Thangamayil Jewellery and circulated a fabricated Scheme among the public and induced them to deposit under the Jewellery Scheme. Further, he collected to the tune of Rs.38 lakhs from general public and cheated the same. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6.It is seen that there are totally 2 accused. The 1st petitioner is arrayed as an accused No.2. The other petitioners are arrayed as accused in Crime No.53 of 2020. Along with A1 they collected money from the general public to the tune of Rs.38 lakhs under the false jewellery scheme in the name and style of Thangamayil Jewellery and cheated the same. A1 and A2 are equally responsible for the said amount which collected from general public. 7.Considering the rival submissions and nature and gravity of the offence and the preliminary stage of the investigation and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner committed serious offence along with her husband, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner.
8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed as against the 1st petitioner and Insofar as the petitioners 2 & 3 concerned, this petition is closed.
sd/- 07/10/2020 / TRUE COPY / / /2020 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
2/3
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH, MADURAI CITY, MADURAI DISTRICT.
2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.10655 of 2020 Date :07/10/2020 DSS PK/SMA/SAR-IV/13.10.2020 : 3P/3C 3/3