AISHWARYA v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
CRL OP/18119/2025 · 2025-07-07
M Nirmal Kumar
Transfer Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69089 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 69089 (MAD) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2025 CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 J.Aishwarya ... Petitioner Vs. State The Inspector of Police, E-5, Pattinapakkam Police Station. Crime No.164 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.164 of 2025 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner : M/s.K.Madhan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side) O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences under Sections u/s.194 of BNSS, 2023 @ 108 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.164 of 2025, on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner borrowed huge sums of money from several financial institutions, for which the deceased stood as surety. The petitioner was living a luxurious life and had fled away with the said money. Subsequently, the deceased being a guarantor was questioned and humiliated by the financiers in front of his family members, which affected the mental health of the deceased, whileso he committed suicide by hanging after leaving a suicide note stating that the petitioner is the sole reason for the deceased having committed suicide. The defacto complainant being the wife of the deceased, had given a complaint before the respondent police. Hence the case. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that the deceased acted as a mediator, however, thereafter, the loan has been repaid by the petitioner to the financial institutions, in which the deceased had no role to play. Moreso, the deceased misrepresented that the private financiers have levied daily interest and collected huge interest from the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner came to know that the financiers had lent money for monthly interest. When the same was questioned by the petitioner in the presence of his relatives, he had 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 committed suicide, leaving behind a detailed suicide note falsely implicating the petitioner as the sole reason for his act, which clearly appears to be a premeditated move.
The deceased did not provide any security for the loan availed by the petitioner. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing of grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, submitted that the defacto complainant is the wife of the deceased. The deceased stood as a guarantor for the loan obtained by the petitioner and his brother. Since the petitioner obtained huge sums of money from the financiers, he could not repay the debt and he fled away. The said act of the petitioner had instigated the deceased to commit suicide leaving a detailed suicide note, which clearly confirms the overt act of the petitioner. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6. On a perusal of the suicide note written by the deceased, it clearly 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 confirms the overt act of the petitioner. In view of the submission made by the learend counsel on either side and also considering the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 07.07.2025 rap To
1. The 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The Inspector of Police, E-5, Pattinapakkam Police Station. 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. rap Crl.O.P.No.18119 of 2025 07.07.2025 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis