BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Nineteenth day of September Two Thousand Eleven PRESENT THE HON`BLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRL OP(MD) Nos.10158 & 10159 of 2011 K.SUGADEVI, ... PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.4 IN BOTH PETITIONS Vs THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIURMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.128 & 127/2011) ... RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT IN BOTH PETITIONS For Petitioner : M/S. VEERAKATHERAVAN Advocate, IN BOTH PETITIONS For Respondent : MR.A.RAMAR, Govt. Advocate ( Crl. Side) IN BOTH PETITIONS PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :- The petitioner/A4 in both petitions apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. in Crime Nos.128 of 2011 and 127 of 2011 respectively on the file of the respondent police and hence, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that two cases have been registered against the petitioner in Crime Nos.128 and 127 of 2011 respectively for the offence under Sections 406 and 420 I.P.C. by the respondent police and the petitioner is arrayed as A4. He would further submit that the defacto complainant approached A1 for getting employment and A1 demanded money for getting employment in the government office and after receipt of the money, neither he secured the appointment order nor returned the money and hence, the defacto complainant gave a complaint. He would further submit that the petitioner/A4 is the wife of A1 and she is no way connected with the commission of offence and the entire family members are made as accused in criminal cases without any specific overt act. He would further submit that the petitioner is living separately from her husband and she is away from her matrimonial home and since, she apprehends arrest, she has come forward with these applications for anticipatory bail. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in one case A1 has received Rs.16 lakhs from two persons and in the another case, he received Rs.8 lakhs and the petitioner is the wife of A1. He would further submit that it is a case of job rocketing and three previous cases are pending against the petitioner and since the investigation is going on, he prayed for the dismissal of these applications. 4. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. The alleged occurrence has been taken place on 14.12.2010 and the case has been registered on 14.05.2011. A1 is none other than the husband of the petitioner. A1 got Rs.16 lakhs and 8 lakhs from two complaints for getting job. Now-a-days, the people are exploiting jobless graduates. Even though the petitioner herein has stated that she is away from her husband and her matrimonial home, she has not filed any documents to prove that she is away from her husband and her matrimonial home. The investigation is in initial state and three more previous cases are pending against the petitioner. 6. In such circumstances, I do not find and merits in these applications and hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and these applications deserves to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. sd/- 19/09/2011 / TRUE COPY / Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) TO 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THIURMANGALAM POLICE STATION, MADURAI DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. +1. CC to M/S. VEERAKATHERAVAN Advocate SR.No.31970 SR : 20.09.2011 : 2p/4c ORDER IN CRL OP(MD) Nos.10158 & 10159 of 2011 Date :19/09/2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/