In this single-judge original criminal petition for anticipatory bail, the court refused the relief citing the seriousness of the offences involving cheque fraud and cheating, as well as the necessity for a thorough investigation.
The anticipation bail application was refused and dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.O.P.No.8401 of 2023
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN , J.
The petitioner / A3 in Crime No.71 of 2023 originally registered by the 1st respondent under Sections 403, 406, 420 and 120B of IPC r/w. Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein was working as Branch Manager in ART Jewellery and Trusted Profit Company at Vadapalani Branch. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it is the 1st and 2nd accused who were running the said company. It is the modus operandi that amounts had been collected from various individuals with promise to return them back with higher interest, but no amount had been returned back. So far as FIR in Crime No.71 of 2023 is concerned, the amount involved is Rs.16,44,000/- and a further FIR had been registered in Crime No.3 of 2023 by the Economic Offences Wing – II, (EOW) Chennai, wherein, complaints had been received from 2250 persons for a total sum of Rs.30,70,00,000/-.
3.It is the case of the respondents that the petitioner was responsible for
collecting money from the various depositors and all the depositors stood cheated of the amounts, which they had so deposited. It is also stated that the name of the
petitioner had been reflected in many complaints showing that she was the person instrumental in luring persons to deposit amounts. As a matter of fact, documents were also produced termed Franchisee Agreement with effect from 02.05.2022 between the 1st accused and this petitioner, wherein, this petitioner was termed as a franchisee to conduct the business of Arbros Trios Private Limited.
4.It is thus seen that the petitioner is directly involved with A1 and A2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that A1 and A2 had been arrested and released on bail. But however, they had been granted bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., and when such bail is granted, conditions can never be imposed under that provision.
5.Taking into consideration the seriousness of the offences involved and
that investigation will have to be done, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner herein. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
19.12.2023
smv
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
smv
Crl.O.P.No.8401 of 2023
19.12.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail in the present serious offence case.
Whether the petitioner's involvement and the seriousness of the charges warrant rejection of bail.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN
State of Tamil Nadu
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
