JUDGMENT (Prayer: C-24AB.For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.11 of 2022 on the file of the Respondent Police.) 1. The petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offences punishable under sections 120(B), 406, 420, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC, in Crime No.11 of 2022, seeks anticipatory bail. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that in the year 2016, the first accused and the second accused contacted over phone stating that they had contact in Secretariat and political level. They promised to secure teacher job in the Government school and stated that it may require Rs.12,00,000/-. So she paid Rs.9,80,000/- by arranging money. Similarly, the accused persons were also found to have cheated her relatives to the tune of Rs.84,75,000/-. They have also promised to arrange for getting good marks in 2017 Teachers Eligible Test. Later, they contacted them with regard to return of the money. Further enquiry reveals that they have also cheated her sister and also her husband to the tune of Rs.52,20,000/-. Similarly, several persons have been cheated by them. On 08/12/2021, the accused persons promised to return the money on or before 15/12/2021 and executed a document also. Similarly, they have also executed an undertaking letter to others. But in-spite of the undertaking, they did not return the money. When that money was demanded, they criminally intimidated. Based upon the complaint, the present case has been registered. 3. Seeking anticipatory bail, this petitioner, who is arrayed as A2 is before this court. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The earlier anticipatory applications filed by this petitioner came to be dismissed after elaborately considering the merits of the case. This is the third application filed on the ground that it has been wrongly observed by this court in the earlier application that he is a Teacher and Government servant and he is only a house wife. 6. The next contention that is urged is that even prior to the alleged transaction, the property which has been mentioned by the prosecution has been acquired by her and she was not at all involved in the above said transaction that took place between her husband and the victim. She was all along residing in Chennai along with child. 6. The next contention that is urged is that even prior to the alleged transaction, the property which has been mentioned by the prosecution has been acquired by her and she was not at all involved in the above said transaction that took place between her husband and the victim. She was all along residing in Chennai along with child. Occasionally, she visited Dindigul, since because she happened to be the wife of A1, who is facing the other cases of like nature, she has been wrongly roped in this crime. 7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would submit that there are 34 victims in this transaction and Rs.5.50 Crores are involved. Even in the bank account of this petitioner, she was having Rs.10,00,000/- in her credit and there is no explanation for the source of the above said income. According to him, when several crores of rupee and several victims are involved in the job racketing, the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail should not be granted to this petitioner. 8. As mentioned above, earlier two bail applications were dismissed by this court after elaborately considering the facts and circumstances of the case. When several victims are involved and several crores of rupee is also involved, unless this petitioner is subjected to custodial interrogation, the truth cannot be found out, that was the earlier observation. Absolutely, I find no change of circumstances. Repeated filing of the anticipatory bail petitions, setting out one or two additional facts is not at all appreciable. 9. I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed.