P. Murali v. The State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR P.Murali ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, Coimbatore.

Crime No.404 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.404 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Sripriya Raghavan For Respondent :

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 1/4

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.404 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein has promised to rent the car to the defacto complaiannt and the defacto complainant has purchased the case and handed over to him based on the documents submitted by the defacto complainant two cars were purchased in the name of the defacto complainant, however after paying only three instalments, petitioner has failed to pay the money and also absconded with the two cars. . Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, earlier petitioner was arrested in connection with another case and the respondent has not chosen to remand the petitioner in this case. He further submitted that he already informed the whereabouts of the car involved in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that petitioner was in possession of two cars belongs to the defacto complainant and now both the cars pledged to some other person and the petitioner has enriched himself by the said money. He further submitted that, in this case, investigation is going on and the cars are yet to be recovered. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner had received the high value cars of the defacto complainant under the pretext of using the same for rental business and siphoned off the money of the defacto complainant and so far no vehicle is recovered, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.02.2026 sma 3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma To

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, Coimbatore.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

17.02.2026 4/4