Lakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.06.2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). No.7850 of 2025 Lakshmi, W/o.Mahadevan

...Petitioner / Accused No.2

Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dindigul District.

(Crime No.38 of 2019) ... Respondent/ Complainant For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Muthiah Poosari Amalan, Advocate.

For Respondent :

Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervener :

Mr.C.Susikumar, Advocate.

1/6

PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS, 2023. PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.38 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police. ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / accused, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 01.05.2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 406, 420 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in Crime No.38 of 2019 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working at the Palani Temple. Accused Nos.1 and 2 frequently visited the Palani Temple and became close to the defacto complainant. Believing their words, the defacto complainant gave a sum of Rs.25,25,000/- to the accused persons in the year 2016, for securing a government job for his son in the EB Department. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and she has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He would further submit that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner is in custody from 01.05.2025. Hence, he seeks bail.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there are totally three accused persons in this case and the petitioner has been arrayed as A2. He would further submit that the accused persons cheated the defacto complainant under the pretext of securing a Government job. He would further submit that the charge sheet in C.C. No. 669 of 2021 was filed and taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Dindigul. Though the trial commenced on 28.10.2021, it was delayed due to the non-appearance of the petitioner. The defacto complainant approached this Court by filing Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 4995 of 2023, seeking a speedy trial, and this Court directed the Trial Court to conclude the proceedings within six months. Pursuant to this, a Non-Bailable Warrant was issued on 27.12.

2023, as the petitioner had been absconding for two years. He would further submit that A1 passed away, and the charges against him were abated. Subsequently, the petitioner was secured on 01.05.2025 and has remained in custody for the past 43 days. He would further submit that there are five previous cases against the petitioner in similar nature and therefore, opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

3/6

5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant would submit that the defacto complainant had made several sincere and strenuous efforts to approach the petitioner for an amicable resolution; however, the same ended in vain. Even at present, the petitioner has not taken any steps to resolve the issue amicably and is only seeking bail from this Court with the only intention of evading her legal responsibilities. He would further submit that the filing of the present bail application by the petitioner is a clear attempt to escape from the clutches of law. He would also submit that there are five previous cases of a similar nature pending against the petitioner. Hence, the learned counsel strongly opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

7. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, and also taking note of the fact that there are five previous cases against the petitioner in similar nature, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is released on bail, she will abscond and may indulge in tampering with the witnesses and the trial proceedings. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage. 4/6

8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 24/06/2025 / TRUE COPY / / /2025 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

2 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE, WOMENS PRISON, NILAKOTTAI.

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

5/6

+1CC to M/s.M.Janani Priya,Advocate(SR.No.6819)

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.9241 of 2025 Date :24/06/2025 MGJ(22.07.2025)/6P/ 5C Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17.07.2023. 6/6