Maria Vincent v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 29/08/2025 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI CRL OP(MD).No.12720 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD).No.10773 of 2025 1.Maria Vincent, S/o.Maria Viyagappan 2.Prema, W/o.Maria Vincent .. Petitioners/A1 & A2 Vs The State of Tamilnadu rep.by The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai.
(Crime No.26 of 2025) .. Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mariappan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.A.Balaji, Advocate 1/8
PETITION FOR ANTICAPTORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.26 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
ORDER : This Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 & A2, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.26 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are running a business under the name and style of "Dream Life Care Global Marketing" at Madurai. The de-facto complainant came to know about the petitioners through her relative, one Sathiyabama. It is alleged that the petitioners compelled the de-facto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, promising that the same would be returned as Rs.1,80,000/- within 200 2/8
days. Believing their words, the de-facto complainant invested a sum of Rs.3,80,000/-, and her father-in-law invested a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- with the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners did not return any amount. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioners have already repaid the entire amount to the de-facto complainant and her father-in-law by transferring the same into their respective bank accounts. He also submitted that after the petitioners filed a suit in O.S. No.7 of 2024 on the file of the learned IV Additional District Munsif, Madurai, against the de-facto complainant and others, the present false complaint has been lodged by the de-facto complainant as a 3/8
counterblast. He, however, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the accused persons are husband and wife, and that there are more than 100 victims who have been affected by their fraudulent financial schemes. He submitted that the accused, by giving false assurances, cheated the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs. 10,80,000/-, and no amount has been repaid by them till date. He submitted that the suit filed by the accused is only an attempt to escape from the clutches of law, and it pertains merely not to disturb the operation of their business, which is not connected to the present case. He further contended that if the accused are granted 4/8
anticipatory bail, they may tamper or influence the witnesses. Therefore, custodial interrogation of the accused is very much necessary in this case. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that there are totally two accused persons in this case. He submitted that so far, 100 persons have been affected, out of them 59 persons have filed complaints, and a sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- has been cheated by the accused. The accused persons, by offering attractive schemes, induced individuals to invest money in their business with the promise of doubling their investment. However, instead of returning the promised profits, the accused diverted the investors to invest in the gold schemes. He further submitted that the investigation is still at preliminary stage, and 5/8
that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, and also taking note of the fact that, as per the prosecution, so far 100 persons were affected, out of them 59 persons have filed complaints and that, as on date, a total sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- has allegedly been cheated by the petitioners, and that the investigation is still at preliminary stage, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.
6/8
7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(P V M J) 29.08.2025 mkn 7/8
P.VADAMALAI,J.
mkn TO 1.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.12720 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD).No.10773 of 2025 Dated : 29/08/2025 8/8