Stalin v. The State Of Tamilnadu
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 08.05.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN 1.Stalin 2.Ragapriya ... Petitioners Vs State of TamilNadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, EOW Police Station, Madurai City, (Crime No.07 of 2022) ... Respondent For Petitioners : Mr.R.Lakshmanan For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.07 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners / Accused Nos.40 and 41, who apprehends arrest at the hands of 1/3
the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 406, 468, 471, 420 and 120(B) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID (F&E) Act 1997 in Crime No.07 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that when the petitioners were working as Money Recovery Officer and System Work Operator respectively in New Raise Alayam Small Finance Banking-Company, they induced the defacto complainant to deposit some amount in the said Company and the Company will pay monthly income to the investors. Believing the words of the petitioners, the defacto complainant deposited a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in the said Company, for which, bond papers were issued to the defacto complainant. However, there is no income from the said Company.
Therefore, the defacto complainant enquired about the company and found that by using the amount invested by the depositors, the said company purchased several properties in their name. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner is now working as Hotel Server and the 2nd petitioner is the house wife. They did not involve in the said allegation as alleged by the defacto complainant.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, on instructions, would submit that the public money is involved in this case and therefore, he prays for dismissal of this petition. 2/3
5.Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioners and considering the fact that the public money is involved in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
sd/- 08/05/2025 / TRUE COPY / /05/2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
YUVA TO 1.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, EOW POLICE STATION, MADURAI CITY, 2.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.8589 of 2025 Date :08/05/2025 PR/21.05 .2025 3P/C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023 3/3