Vinoth v. The State Rep. By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Vinoth ... Petitioner/A22 Vs.
The State Rep. by Deputy Superintend of Police, Economic Offence Wing, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
... Respondent (Crime No.66 of 2023) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.66 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner :
Mr.T.Nixon For Respondent :
Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, later the FIR was altered U/s. 406, 420, 409, 120(B) of IPC and Sec 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 in Crime No.66 of 2023, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory 1/6
bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her friend are running a beauty parlour. Whileso, her friend informed her that she was working at Green Agro Tech Company and introduced Ezhilarasan/A1 and Vijayalakshmi/A2. The accused induced the defacto complainant's friend by promising 25% profits on investments in their company. Believing these false representations the defacto complainant pledged her jewels, borrowed loans from her friends, and invested Rs.60,00,000/- on 30.06.2022 and Rs.70,00,000/- on 14.07.2022 in Green Agro Tech. The accused acknowledged receipt via case receipts ANR 1665 dated 30.06.2022 and ANR 1683 dated 14.07.2022. They also forced her to join a chit scheme for Rs.20,00,000/-. When the accused defaulted on promised interest payments, the defacto complainant went to the Green Agro Tech office on 25.07.2022 and found that the accused persons were absconding and their office was locked. Thereby, A1 and A2 colluded with intent to cheat the defacto complainant, collected a total amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is 2/6
innocent and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that this is a case of financial fraud involving 59 victims and a total amount of Rs.4.53 Crores, whereas the petitioner has collected Rs.1.2 crores through his wife and relatives. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is clear that this is a case of financial fraud and in which 59 victims were involved and a total amount is Rs.4.53 Crores. The specific overt act against the petitioner is that, he has collected Rs.1.2 crores through his wife and relatives. In such view of the serious allegation against the petitioner, it is not desirable to enlarge him on anticipatory bail. 3/6
6. However, I make it clear that mere dismissal of the anticipatory bail application does not mean that the petitioner has to be immediately arrested by the respondent police. On the other hand, the respondent police have to follow the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2026 INSC 115) and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1578 and has to take action in accordance with law.
7. With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
09.03.2026 ssi To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Valavanur Police Station, Villupuram.
4/6
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
C.KUMARAPPAN , J.
ssi 5/6
09.03.2026 6/6