R. REGUPATHI, J.: The petitioner, who was arrested on 17.6.2008 for the offences punishable under Secs.403, 406, 420 IPC in Cr.No.228 of 2008 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the husband of the petitioner by name Ravi, who was operating an Account with ABN Amro Bank, expired and, on verification from the Bank authorities, she came to know that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs is in deposit of the Account operated by her husband. After producing the Death Certificate, Legal Heir Certificate and other necessary documents, the amount was withdrawn by the petitioner and later, the defacto-complainant Bank realised that the said amount actually was not in the deposit of the husband of the petitioner but some other person having the same name and under such circumstances, a complaint has been filed with the Inspector of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai-34, whereupon, a petition enquiry was initiated. Subsequently, the petitioner has returned back Rs.9,80,000/- available with her to the Bank and could not re-pay the balance money since she had cleared the debts of her deceased husband from the amount withdrawn. 3. In the meantime, this Court, by order, dated 02.01.2008, passed in Crl.O.P.No.35589 of 2007, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner by imposing certain conditions. 4. Under such circumstances, a private complaint has been filed by the Bank before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and the learned Magistrate, issued a direction under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C to the present respondent viz., the Inspector of Police, Team III, Central Crime Branch, Chennai, to register case and investigate into the matter. Consequently, the respondent police registered a case on 21.4.2008 and effected arrest of the petitioner, hence, the present petition has been filed before this Court seeking bail. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in spite of informing the respondent police about the order dated 02.01.2008, granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioner on same set of facts and allegations, she was arrested and at that time, some other persons, on the instructions of the complainant bank, were also present. He further submits that she is innocent and being a lady, expressed her helplessness and pleaded time for re-payment of the balance money. 6. He further submits that she is innocent and being a lady, expressed her helplessness and pleaded time for re-payment of the balance money. 6. Learned Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that, at the time when petition enquiry was pending with the Inspector of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai-34, a complaint has been received from the defacto-complainant/Bank authorities by the present respondent on the direction of the Magistrate, and on enquiry, the petitioner refused to pay Rs.12,52,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the intervenor/defacto-complainant submits that, after receiving orders from the High Court, sureties were not executed. Moreover, the Inspector of Police, F-3, Nungambakkam Police Station, Chennai-34 conducted only a petition enquiry and case was not registered and that is the reason why a private complaint has been preferred before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, whereupon, an order has been passed under Sec.156(3) Cr.P.C forwarding the complaint to the present respondent police viz.,The Inspector of Police, Team III, Central Crime Branch, Chennai. 8. I have perused the materials available on record. It is unfortunate that in spite of the orders passed by this Court on the same set of facts and allegations, a second case has been registered by the respondent police and that even though the petitioner informed the respondent about the earlier order granted by this Court, arrest was effected and a poor widow has been sent to judicial custody. Prima-facie, on the face of the allegations, the dispute involved is purely of a civil nature. There is no doubt at all that the defacto-complainant Bank committed the mistake, for, only after thorough scrutiny of the materials and in particular, the documents and transaction details available with it, the Bank had released the amount. After receipt of the money, the petitioner has cleared the debts of her deceased husband and when the petitioner was asked to repay the amount, she returned back the balance money Rs.9,80,000/- available with her to the defacto-complainant and under such circumstances, dishonest intention cannot be attributed to the petitioner. It is apparent that the Bank Authorities, using middlemen and utilising their money power, filed a second case and stealthily obtained orders by suppressing several facts. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. It is apparent that the Bank Authorities, using middlemen and utilising their money power, filed a second case and stealthily obtained orders by suppressing several facts. 9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her executing own bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and on condition that the petitioner shall report before the respondent police as and when required. 10. It is heartening to note that the Magistrate concerned, without properly analysing the materials, passed the order for investigation of the matter by police, which exercise he should not have undertaken in a matter which relates to a dispute of civil nature. It is also noticed that such undesirable trend is on its increase. Therefore, for passing further orders in that regard, the matter be listed tomorrow ie., on 10.07.2008, along with Crl.O.P. No.15451 of 2008.