Seethalakshmi v. State Represented by

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(4), 318(4) & 344 of BNS Act and 66 (c) of IT Act, in Crime No.146 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2A complaint regarding misappropriation of Rs.32,99,487/- has been registered against the husband of this petitioner and others, who were working in Dr.Mohah's Diabetes Specialities Centre Pvt. Ltd. According to the petitioner, he has nothing to do with the alleged crime and no money was transferred.

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case.

¶5Heard the learned counsels and perused the materials available on record.

¶6Considering the nature of the complaint, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions;

¶7Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, on or before 04.09.2025 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram, on condition that the petitioner shall execute 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 Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: [a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate on or before 04.09.2025, this Order shall stand automatically cancelled; [b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity; [c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required for interrogation; [d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned 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)13 SCC 283]; [e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

¶8Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.

21.08.2025 dna To

1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tambaram.

2.The Inspector of Police, T-12 Selaiyur Police Station, (Crime No.146 of 2025)

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,

J. dna and Crl.M.P.No.12084 of 2025

21.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.08.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN and Crl.M.P.No.12084 of 2025 Seethalakshmi ... Petitioner Vs. State represented by, The Inspector of Police, T-12 Selaiyur Police Station, (Crime No.146 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.146 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jai Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)