Siva v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Siva S/o.Ramu, No.10, Pillayar Koil Street, Sembakkam, Arcot, Vellore District-632008.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Maharajakadai Police station, Krishnagiri District.

Cr.No.290 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: To enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.290 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.T.Dhasarathan For Respondent(s):

M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 204 and 318(4) of BNS in Crime No. 290 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is a member of the group ranked as A1 and when the de facto complainant approached A1 and A2 for obtaining a loan, they promise that they are inclined to arrange a Rs.1 crore loan, collected Rs.4.15 lakhs as documentation charges and on the way to process the application, other accused posing themselves as Government officials, threatened them and abducted other accused and taken away the money. Thereafter, the complaint was lodged and it revealed that the petitioner is involved in these kinds of activities and the overt act against the petitioner is that the petitioner also accompanied A2 with the de facto complainant and was involved in cheating the money. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is alleged that the petitioner only introduced A2 in this case and he has not involved in collection of money or abduction of any person. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to deposit the money which was not so far recovered. Therefore, prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that there are 9 accused in this case, A2 to A9 have already been arrested and so far Rs.3.90 lakhs have been recovered and the petitioner is also having 2 previous cases, out of which one is under 420 IPC. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner is also one of the main accused who introduced A2 and he connived and participated actively with other accused and also has previous cases, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

11-02-2026 MPATo 1.State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Maharajakadai Police station, Krishnagiri District.

Cr.No.290 of 2025.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MPA 11-02-2026