A Josephin Reena @ Josepine Reena v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR A.Josephin Reena ... Petitioners Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, CBCID, North Police Station, Vellore District.

Crime No.03 of 2025 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.03 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.M.Balaji 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 Sections120(B), 420, 465, 468, 506(i) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.03 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner herein had induced the defacto complainant to invest with the defacto complainant for the purpose of withdrawal of several crores of rupees available in the RBI and for that purpose, on the promise of 10% profit, petitioner had collected a sum of Rs.61.65 lakhs from the defacto complainant. Whenever the defacto complainant demands back the money, petitioner used to pay small amounts and the total amount returned back is Rs.34 lakhs and the balance amount bas been swindled by the petitioner. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant has lodged several complaints and all the complaints were closed since the dispute is civil in nature and he further submitted that the petitioner has repaid Rs.40 lakhs in this case, however the defacto complainant has demanded more money from the petitioner herein, hence, 2/4

has not agreed to return back the money, hence the case has been registered and prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of allegations and the fact that out of Rs.61.65 lakhs, only Rs.34 lakhs has been refunded and the remaining amount has not been paid and it is a case of cheating, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 17.02.2026 sma To

1. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, North Police Station, Vellore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma 17.02.2026 4/4