S.Prakash v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P. No.1655 of 2026 S. Prakash ... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, C1, Kattur, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.552 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS) 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.552 of 2025, on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr. M. Gnanasekar, for Mr. T. Gnana Banu, Mr. G. Gubendhiran, M/s. M. Dalath M/s. Nanthini For Respondent : Mr. A. Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener : Mr. A. Parthasarthy : M/s. M. Padmavathy : M/s. S. Pooja Shree 1/6

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 13.12.2025, for the offences punishable under Section 296(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassments of Women, (TNPHW), Act, was subsequently altered by adding offences under Sections 316(2) and 316(4) of BNS Act, in Crime No.552 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police, seeks bail. 2.

The allegations against the petitioner are that he developed a relationship with victim and induced her to invest money in a catering business, pursuant to which, he collected a sum of Rs.65 Lakhs from her under the pretext of marrying her. Later the victim/defacto complainant came to know that the petitioner was having an affair with another woman. When the victim demanded him to marry her and repay the money collected from her, the petitioner refused to do either. Thus, it is alleged that the petitioner cheated the defacto complainant under the pretext of loving her. Hence, the present complaint has been registered.

2/6

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been in incarceration since 13.12.2025 and that the dispute is purely one of non-payment of money. It was further submitted that the petitioner had already lodged a compliant against the victim/defacto complainant, which was registered at the earliest point of time, in Crime No.345 of 2025, in the month of September 2025, for the offences under Sections 296(b), 331(1) 133 and 351(2) of BNS. Suppressing the said fact, the present complaint has been registered against her. He also submitted that multiple complaints have been registered at the instance of the defacto complainant and therefore, the present case is a false one. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and undertakes to appear and co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the intervener/defacto complainant and some of the victims appeared before this Court through hybrid mode and submitted that the petitioner is an habitual offender, who has cheated as many as 11 victims to the tune of Rs.3.72 Crores, and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3/6

5.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent, reiterated the case of the prosecution that even prior to the registration of the present case, the petitioner had developed a romantic relationship with the victim and collected a sum of Rs.65,00,000/-. It was further submitted that the petitioner had adopted a similar modus operandi and cheated 11 victims, apart form the defacto complainant's complaint, to the tune of Rs.3.72 Crores. Insofar as the counter complaint registered against the defacto complainant is concerned, it was submitted that the same pertains to the demand for return of money paid by the defacto complainant, who was cheated by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the investigation in this case is still pending.

6.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and taking into account the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), and that the fact the petitioner is alleged to have cheated 11 victims, including the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.3.72 Crores, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage. 4/6

7.

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.01.2026 klt To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court, Coimbatore. 2.The Inspector of Police, C1, Kattur, Coimbatore District. 3.The Central Prison, Coimbatore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

klt Crl.O.P. No.1655 of 2026 27.01.2026 6/6