SATHIYAVANI v. The State rep by The Inspector of Police
CRL OP/17110/2025 · 2025-06-24
G K Ilanthiraiyan
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65245 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 65245 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M. NIRMAL KUMAR CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 SATHIYAVANI Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.1 of 2025. Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No. 1 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent(s): M/s. A. Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.N.Umapathi For Intervenor
ORDER The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 15.05.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 408 of IPC, in connection with Crime No.1 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 2.The prosecution alleges that the accused, who is working as an Account Assistant at Aravind Eye Hospital, misappropriated Rs.1,16,34,000/- by not depositing the funds into the bank account as required. The discrepancy was discovered during an audit of the hospital's accounts, which were governed by Govel Trust, where Dr. Kalpana Narenthiran is a trustee. 3.In continuation of the order passed by this Court dated 16.06.2025, the
learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he admits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 2014 and the daily collection has to be informed to one Mr.Mouna Gurusamy, who is an Account incharge of head office. An annual auditing is conducted and the periodical daily statement was sent to the head office and also the periodical inspection from the head office is being done. Now suddenly making an allegation that an amount of Rs.1,16,34,000/- has been misappropriated by the petitioner is without any proper accounting is impossible. He would submit that further allegation is that the petitioner used this misappropriated amount to construct her house is false. The petitioner has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 availed housing loan from Canara Bank and she is still paying the EMI every month. 4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would submit that the investigation is on going, documents have been collected the defacto complainant is directed to submit the entire statement of accounts and as regards the allegation of A2-Rajakumar being treated differently is false. The learned Public Prosecutor had produced the letter of the IOB Manager, Aravind Eye Hospital branch, confirming that the said Rajakumar had admitted that he had received some amount from the petitioner and this amount had been now paid by way of cheque is as follows: S.no Chq No Chq Amount Date 1 103480 Rs.19,70,000/- 07.03.2025 2 103481 Rs.16,00,000/- 10.03.2025 3 103483 Rs.6,00,000/- 11.03.2025 4 103484 Rs.2,00,000/- 14.03.2025 Total Rs.43,70,000/- In total, an amount of Rs.43,70,000/- has been so far paid. A2-Rajakumar is also co-operating with the investigation and he had given an undertaking if https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 any other amount is found to be received by him, he is ready to remit the same to the defacto complainant. 5.The learned counsel for the intervenor would submit that the petitioner was able to manipulate the accounting software and transferred a sum of Rs.43,00,000/- to A2/Rajakumar. Further it is also informed that the petitioner had constructed a huge house for value of Rs.1.5 Crores. Further internal enquiry is going on and records were collected. The respondent police have been provided with all details. 6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the case is of grievous offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. 7.
In view of the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. gbi 24-06-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 To 1.The State rep by The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station, Tiruppur District. Crime No.1 of 2025. 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. 3.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur. 4.The Special Prison for Women, Coimbatore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR J. gbi CRL OP No. 17110 of 2025
24-06-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis