Krishnamurthy v. State Rep By District Crime Branch

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.3030 of 2026 Krishnamurthy ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by District Crime Branch Kancheepuram Kancheepuram District ... Respondent (Cr.No.19 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.19 of 2025 dated on the file of the respondent police and pass orders.

For Petitioner : Mr. Prem Kumar For Respondent : M/s. J.R. Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318, 3(5) of BNS in Crime No.19 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and other accused received goods from the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.95,28,953/-. It is alleged that after receiving the goods the petitioners has given cheques and when the same was presented for collection it was returned as funds insufficient thereby the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he has not entered into business transaction with the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the petitioners are ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners involved in three previous cases which are similar in nature. He further submitted on the deep scrutiny it is found that the petitioners have adopted this type of modus operandi, and thereby swindled money from the 2/4

defacto complainant and also from other persons. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made by both sides;the nature of offence, modus operandi operated of the petitioners to swindle the money from the defacto complainant and the bad antecedents of the petitioner, this Court is not not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09.02.2026 smn To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District

2. The District Crime Branch Kancheepuram,Kancheepuram District .

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

smn Crl.O.P.No.3030 of 2026 09.02.2026 4/4