Asha @ Ashadaris vs The State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police

The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the alleged offences punishable under Section 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023, in Crime No.75 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, has approached this Court seeking anticipatory bail.

The allegations against the petitioner are that it is the case of job racketing, where the accused/A1 allegedly received a sum of Rs.2,85,000/- from the defacto complainant on the false promise of securing a job in the Railways. The petitioner is A2, who introduced A1 to the defacto complainant. After a long time, the accused/A1 neither arranged the job nor repaid the amount. Hence, the defacto complainant lodged the complaint against the accused/A1 and the petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and she never committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. It was further submitted that the petitioner is the sister of the accused/A1, and the accused/A1 had already repaid a sum of Rs.1 Lakh to the defacto complainant’s account through G-Pay and also produced the copies of payment proof before this Court. Further, the learned counsel also undertakes that the accused/A1 is ready to deposit the balance sum of Rs.1,85,000/-. He also submitted that the petitioner is a law-abiding citizen, ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court, and therefore, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A2, who is the sister of the accused/A1. The A1 allegedly received money from the defacto complainant on the false promise of securing a job in the Railways. The amount involved in the present transaction is Rs.2,85,000/-, and A1 was arrested on 05.09.2026 and later released on bail. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the only allegation against the petitioner/A2 is that she introduced A1 to the defacto complainant, and that there is no specific allegation of her further involvement in the alleged offence, this Court is of the considered view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Kilpennathur, Tiruvannamalai District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/-each (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: