Vinita Nitin Mokal Alias Vinita Nitin Mohan v. The State Of Tamilnadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 24.02.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD). No.18192 of 2025 Vinita Nitin Mokal @ Vinita Nitin Mohan ... Petitioner Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy.

(Crime No.17 of 2025) ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr.Lenin Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.S.Ramsundar Vijayraj PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.17 of 2025 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 318(4), 316(5) and 61(2) of BNS in 1/4

Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on during the course of business, the complainant acquainted with one Sekar R.Choudari and his wife, who is the petitioner herein through Chandrasekar, Malligarjuna Karde and Aravindan. She and her husband had informed the complainant that they had purchaded wheat from farmers and kept it in a godown for sale. Believing their words, the complainant and others went to Mumbai to verify the wheat stock. After verifying the wheat, the complainant entered into purchase agreement with the de-facto complainant. Pursuant to the agreement, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.1,18,40,000/- through RTGS to the company's account. On 04.10.2024 and 05.10.2024, the petitioner's husband took the complainant and others to a godown situated at Bhopal and showed the wheat stock.

On seeing the wheat, the complainant got satisfied and came back to Tamilnadu. The complainant was waiting for the petitioner's husband to send wheat bags to him. But he did not send the same. Whenever the complainant requested the petitioner's husband to send the wheat bags, he had refused to do so. At one stage, the petitioner's husband issued a cheque to discharge his liability.

husband is maintaining a sufficient balance in his account, he was informed that his account did not have a sufficient balance. By doing so, the petitioner and her husband had cheated the complainant. Hence, a case has been registered. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence. He seeks this Court to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Further, the 1st accused was arrested and released on bail.

5.The transaction between the defecto complainant and the petitioner is that the defacto complainant has to pay 30% for the sale consideration for wheat. In return, the petitioner has to procure wheat from the farmers and supply the same to the de facto complainant. But the agreement failed because the defacto complainant did not pay the balance 70%. In turn, the petitioner refused to supply the same. But it is clear that the petitioner is bound to return the the payment which the petitioner had received for supply of the wheat. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to deposit the said amount, but the 3/4

petitioner expressed her inability to pay the same.

6. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature and gravity of the offence and the specific overt act against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 24.02.2026 TMG TO 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Trichy District.

2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/4