Sivanesan v. State By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.02.2025

CORAM:

THE HON`BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

1. Sivanesan S/o. Jeyaraman

2. Tamil Selvi W/o. Sivanesan .... Petitioners / Accused Vs State rep. by:- The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch, Chengalpattu.

... Respondent [Cr. No.12 of 2024] PRAYER: - The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., praying to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners / Accused in Crime No.12 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr. Inbazhagan.A.

For Respondent : Mr. S. Santhosh Government Advocate [Criminal side]

ORDER

1/5

The petitioners / Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in connection with the case in Crime No.12 of 2024, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were running a Chit fund and collected monthly payments under a Scheme from various subscribers and cheated for a total value of Rs.1.16 crores.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the allegations against the petitioner are false; that in any case, the allegations only disclosed the commercial transactions; that the petitioners are, therefore, not guilty of the alleged offences and in any case, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and therefore prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and on instructions, submitted 2/5

that both the petitioners are involved in another case of similar nature and the 2nd petitioner was arrested and released on mandatory bail on 28.01.2025.

5. In response, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the defacto complainant in both the cases are the same. On verification, this Court finds that the complainants are different in both the cases.

6. Considering the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the fact that the petitioners have committed offences of similar kind, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation is required as there are many victims cheated by the petitioners. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 28.02.2025 3/5

mjs To 1.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

2. The Inspector Of Police, District Crime Branch,Chengalpattu. SUNDER MOHAN. J., mjs 4/5

28.02.2025 5/5