U. Venkata Satyanarayana v. State By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN U.Venkata Satyanarayana ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by, The Inspector of Police, Beta -1 EDF-1, Central Crime Branch-1, Chennai.

Crime No. 89 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the Respondent Police concerned in Crime No. 89 of 2025 on the file of Inspector of Police, Beta -1 EDF-1, Central Crime Branch - 1, Chennai.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Balu For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 409, 420 and 506(1) r/w. Section 34 of IPC, 1860 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the first accused was running

M/s.Suma Refineries Private Limited and had come forward to sell his plant and machinery in favour of the de facto complainant for a total sale consideration of Rs.9.9 crores, out of which Rs.1.25 crores was paid as advance. Subsequently, the de facto complainant was allowed to take possession of part of the machinery. While removing the machinery, it came to light that the second accused, by colluding with the first accused, claiming himself to be the authorized recovering agent of the bank which had attached the loan of the first accused, raised objection for the removal of the machinery from the first accused premises. Hence, after discussions and on the instigation of the first accused, the defacto complainant was made to enter into an undertaking with Accused No.

2 that he shall pay the remaining balance loan of the bank, and accordingly payments were made to the second accused while taking the property. This was intervened by the original Asset Reconstruction Company and bank officials, and the entire episode came to light that A1 to A5 colluded and cheated the defacto complainant to the extent of Rs.2.88 crores. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the earlier anticipatory bail application, this Court has not considered the existence of an arbitration clause. Had it been brought to the knowledge of this Court, he would have got a favourable order.

4. The said contention was objected by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police and submitted that the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that this Court has given a clear finding in the earlier application that granting anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation and hence, there is no change of circumstances from the said application.

5. Considering the above submissions, this Court is of the view that the argument of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for custodial interrogation of the petitioner cannot be faulted and that there is no change in circumstances from the earlier application. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 17-03-2026 rap To

1. The Metropolitan Magistrate fro the Exclusive Trial of CCB and CBCID Metro cases, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Beta -1 EDF-1, Central Crime Branch-1, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 17-03-2026