Lakshmi Narayani v. The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 22/10/2021 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice B.PUGALENDHI Lakshmi Narayani ... Petitioner/Accused No.2 Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Thiruthangal Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

Crime No.340 of 2021.

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Anantha Murugan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.439 of Cr.P.C.

PRAYER :- For Bail in Crime No.340 of 2021 on the file of the Respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2 who was arrested on 05.09.2021 for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C, in crime No.340 of 2021 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused were running a Chit Fund in the name of Star Finance and collected huge amount from the public by promising to return the money with attractive interest. Believing their words, the defacto complainant invested a sum of Rs.55/- lakhs in the said chit fund and thereafter, the accused persons failed to repay the same. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner claims that the first accused is the husband of the petitioner herein and in the very same issue, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Virudhunagar on 19.04.2021 that the first accused borrowed Rs.47,50,000/- and the said complaint was forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, DCB, Virudhunagar for conducting enquiry. In the said complaint, he did not mention

anything about his deposit in the Chit Fund. Now, the defacto complainant lodged this complaint stating that he deposited the huge amount in the Chit Fund and the same was received by the first accused. Admittedly, no one has received money from the defacto complainant. A false case has been foisted by the defacto complainant. The petitioner is an innocent, she has not committed any offence and with a view to harass the petitioner, the defacto complainant lodged the present complaint. He would further submit that the petitioner has already filed a divorce petition before the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivakasi and it is pending. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 05.09.2021. Hence, he prays for bail.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose the grant of bail to the petitioner as this petitioner collected huge amount from various people and cheated them. In order to avoid repaying the money to the depositors, She bequeathed all the properties to her minor son by way of settlement and also appointed her father-in-law as guardian.

5.The act of the petitioner that grabbing the money from the public and subsequently, creating the documents in the name of her minor child, clearly shows that this petitioner is having intention to commit fraud on the public money.

6.Considering the gravity of offence, the manner in which the occurrence committed by the petitioner and also considering the vehement objection raised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. sd/- 22/10/2021 / TRUE COPY / / /2021 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

PNM/msa 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 SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON(WOMEN), MADURAI.

2.THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIRUTHANGAL POLICE STATION, VIRUDHUNAGAR DISTRICT.

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

ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) No.15165 of 2021 Date :22/10/2021 SB/VR/SAR-IV/28.10.2021/3P/4C