SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 84885

MADRAS HIGH COURT
E.VANITHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE REP BY – Respondent
CRL OP 16237/2022



Advocates:
['M/S K R RAMESH KUMAR', '', 'M MATHAN RAJ', 'S AROCKIARAJ', 'R RAGHU RAJ', 'A NAGARAJAN', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.OP.No.16237 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.07.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.OP.No.16237 of 2022

E.Vanitha

..Petitioner/A1

Vs.

State by:

Inspector of Police,

Bank Fraud Investigation Wing, Team-31,

Central Crime Branch,

Egmore, Chennai.

(Crime No.158 of 2020).

..Respondent

PRAYER:

Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime

No.158 of 2020 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Bank Fruad

Investigation Wing, Team-31, Central Crime Branch, Egmore, Chennai.

For Petitioner

: Mr.A.Nagarajan

For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran,

Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial

1/6

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

Crl.OP.No.16237 of 2022

custody on 30.06.2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 420,

465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in crime No.158 of 2020 on the file of the

respondent police, seeks bail.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that M/s. RME Sea Foods,

had approached the de-facto complainant branch and applied for

business loans and it was sanctioned on 25.11.2015 by then Chief

Manager of the Branch Mrs. Celine Santiago. The said company was

sanctioned a term loan of Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Only)

for doing sea food processing business and an OD limit of Rs.80,00,000/-

(Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) was sanctioned to meet working capital

needs and both term loans were not covered by any collateral security, as

it was sanctioned under CGTMSE. The term loan was to be repaid in

EMI's of Rs.30,788/- each starting from 29.02.2016 till 30.11.2022.

Later, the party started to make default and failed to pay monthly term

loan instalments and ultimately both the loan accounts become NPA on

30.06.2017. Further, the unit has been closed without informing the de-

facto complainant. Hence, the case.

2/6

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

Crl.OP.No.16237 of 2022

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that on 02.08.2019, one Mr.G.Ashok Raj, Chief Manager,

Syndicate Bank, T.Nagar Branch lodged a complaint with the

Commissioner of Police, Chennai through proper channel vide C.

No.4399/CCB/COP/V/2019,

C.No.3657/DC/CCB-I/COP/V/2019,

C.No.2153/AC-BF/COP/V/2019. On receipt of the complaint, the

respondent herein registered a case on 05.05.2020 in Crime No.158 of

2020 for the alleged offence as against the petitioner.

4. Even according to the de-facto complainant, A1 borrowed

loan from the de-facto complainant to the tune of Rs.97,00,000/- by

mortgaging property worth about Rs.80,00,000/-. Now, the loan account

also become Non Performing Asset. That apart, the complaint is lodged

in the year 2019 and the First Information Report was registered in the

year 2020.

5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case

3/6

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

Crl.OP.No.16237 of 2022

and also considering the period of incarceration from the date of arrest

i.e., 30.06.2022, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her

executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)

with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned

CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on

further conditions that:

[a] 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.

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily

at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when

required for interrogation.

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation

or trial.

[d] the petitioner sh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top