Renuka Devi v. State Rep. by

ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(1) & 120(B) of IPC, in Page2 of 6 Crime No.4 of 2026 seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A5 in this case and, she along with other accused, was involved in running a gold scheme and collected a sum of Rs.1.30 Crores from the defacto complainant. However, they failed to return the gold or the money. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner/A5 is a senior citizen and is only the mother of A2. She has not been involved in the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the petitioner has been actively participated in this case and if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail it would hamper the investigation and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 6

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the amount involved in this case is Rs.1.30 Crores. He further submitted that there are specific averments that this petitioner also collected money in cash from the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.I have also gone through the FIR and it revealed that the majority of the allegations are against A1 to A3, and they are the persons involved in the business activities. It is further alleged that the other accused also collected money in cash in association with the other accused and subsequently failed to return the amount when it was demanded. It is also alleged that the petitioner, along with the other accused, threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences.

7.Considering the above submissions and the fact that the majority of the allegations are only against A1 to A3, and further considering that the petitioner is a lady and a senior citizen, as well as the overtact attributed to her, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

¶8Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory Page4 of 6 bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tambaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 and on further condition 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 appear before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(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]; and; Page5 of 6

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 03-02-2026 GBI To

1.State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram, Tambaram City, Chennai District. Crime No.4 of 2026

2.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Tambaram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o2366oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. GBI CRLoOPoNo.o2366oofo2026 03-02-2026 Page6oofo6

Page1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Renuka Devi ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCB-Tambaram, Tambaram City, Chennai District. Crime No.4 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.4 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): For Intervenor: Mr.Camyles Gandhi W Mr.D.Alexis Sudhakar For Respondent(s): Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)