R.Saradha v. The State rep byThe Inspector of Police
Case at a glance
Outcome
Bail granted
Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and the fact that no amount has been recovered so far, this Court is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, there is a likelihood of tampering with the investigation
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 482
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 49, 61(2), 316(5), 318(4)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
Judgment
Crl.OP.No18159 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 22.10.2025CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKARCrl.O.P.No.18159 of 2025R.Saradha, ... Petitioner Vs.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Arcot town Police Station, Ranipet District. (Cr.No.277 of 2025) ... RespondentPRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.277 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Arcot town Police Station, Ranipet District) or on our appearance before the concerned court. For Petitioner : No appearanceFor Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)For Intervenor: Mr.V.KirubanandhaO R D E RThe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence under Sections 61(2), 316(5), 318(4), 49 of BNS Act 2023 (120B, 409, 420, 109 IPC) in crime No.277 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No18159 of 2025 2.
Today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner/A5.3. The allegation against the petitioner/A5 is that she was working in a finance company in various capacities and, along with other staff members, colluded with one another by forging documents, misusing the gold jewels pledged in other accounts, and by using spurious/fictitious gold, thereby misappropriating a sum of Rs.37.37 lakhs. It is further alleged that the petitioner was actively involved in the commission of the offence. Apprehending arrest, the petitioner has filed the present petition seeking anticipatory bail.4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that a huge amount has been swindled by the staff members of the finance company and that the investigation is in progress. It was further submitted that the preliminary report reveals that a sum of Rs.37,30,900/- has been misappropriated and therefore opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5.
Operative part
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that totally five accused are involved in this case. A1 has been arrested and is presently in judicial custody. So far, no amount has been recovered and the investigation is at a preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No18159 of 2025 6. Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and the fact that no amount has been recovered so far, this Court is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, there is a likelihood of tampering with the investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.22.10.2025VvTo1. The Inspector of Police, Arcot town Police Station, Ranipet District. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.OP.No18159 of 2025 K.RAJASEKAR , J. Vv Crl.O.P.No.18159 of 202522.10.20254/4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Considering the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and the fact that no amount has been recovered so far, this Court is of the view that if anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner, there is a likelihood of tampering with the investigation
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — ss. 49, 61(2), 316(5), 318(4); Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.