S.Angalaeaswari v. The Inspector Of Police

CRL OP(MD). No.20141 of 2022 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 14/11/2022 PRESENT The Hon`ble Mr.Justice A.A.NAKKIRAN CRL OP(MD). No.20141 of 2022 S.Angalaeaswari, ... Petitioner/2nd Accused Vs State Rep.by The Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi Police Station, Tenkasi District.

(Crime No.484/2022) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : M/s.Sasikumar V, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr.M.Muthumanikkam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.438 of Cr.P.C PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.484/2022 on the file of the respondent police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of I.P.C, in Crime No.484 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused had received money from the defacto complainant and others assuring that he will arrange the job of Office Assistant. On believing his words, the defacto complainant and others have paid a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- to the accused. Thereafter, the first accused could not arrange the job to them and also cheated them. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has been arrayed as second accused in this case, just because, she is the wife of the first accused. She is unnecessarily https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/2

CRL OP(MD). No.20141 of 2022 roped as an accused, despite no allegation as against the petitioner in the complaint. The petitioner is no way connected with the alleged transaction between the first accused and the defacto complainant and others. He would further submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and she did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, she may be granted anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) would submit that it is a clear case of job racketing and the petitioner and the first accused are husband and wife and they had received a sum of Rs.22,50,000/- from the de-facto complainant and others.

He would further submit that investigation is not yet completed and since huge amount involved in this case, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary in this case. Hence, he strongly opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.Considering the seriousness and gravity of the offence and also the quantum of amount involved in the case and that the investigation is pending and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary as stated by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side), this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- 14/11/2022 / TRUE COPY / /11/2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

TO 1 THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PULIYANGUDI POLICE STATION, TENKASI DISTRICT.

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

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.20141 of 2022 Date :14/11/2022 cp PKP/VR/SAR /24.11.2022/2P/3C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/2