M.Ananthi Vs The State Rep by

respondent Police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and after completion of investigation, later altered to Sections 420 and 506(ii) of IPC in Crime No.14 of 2024 on the file of the respondent

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/6

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.31927 of 2024

¶19

Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶20

2.Pleading innocence on the part of the petitioner, false

¶21

implication in the case, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks indulgence of this court. He would submit that the petitioner/A2 being the Managing Director of M/s Safvold Switchgear Private Limited, had alleged to have purchased the property belonged to the defacto complainant for a sale consideration of Rs.6 crores and cheated him without payment of sale consideration and alleged to have misappropriated to the tune of Rs.4.62 crores. He would also submit that the petitioner, who is wife of A, has no role in this case and it is a case of civil transaction, which has been falsely projected as a case of cheating and the investigation of this case has been completed and a case in C.C.No.548 of 2024 is now pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur and stand posted to 20.02.2025 and in such circumstance, the custody of the petitioner may not be required and that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court.

¶22

3.The case of the prosecution as putforth by the learned Government Advocate(Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/6

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.31927 of 2024

¶24

police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail, is that the accused had induced the defacto complainant to sell his property for a sale consideration of Rs.6 crores whereas he paid part of the amount of Rs.1,37,25,000/- and had cheated the defacto complainant. He would submit that the bail granted to A1, who is the husband of the petitioner, by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15812 of 2024 has been cancelled in Crl.M.P.No.12731 of 2024 in Crl.O.P.No.15812 of 2024 vide order dated 28.10.2024 and challenging the said order, SLP(Crl.)No.016750 of 2024 has been filed before the Apex Court and the same was also dismissed on 02.12.2024.

¶25

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioners had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.4.62 crores.

¶26

5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/6

¶29

Crl.O.P.No.31927 of 2024

¶30

6.Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶31

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magisrate No.II, Tiruppur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a separate bond for a sum o f Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

¶32

[a] the petitioner and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.

¶33

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of one week

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

4/6

¶36

Crl.O.P.No.31927 of 2024

¶37

and thereafter, on the first Saturday of every month at

¶38

10.30 a.m. until further orders.

¶39

[c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

¶40

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

¶41

[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

¶42

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

24.01.2025

raa

To