K.Jagan v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN K.Jagan S/o.Kannappan, No.1, Mailadum malai, Mel Manguppam, Vellore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CBCID Vellore Police Station, Vellore District.

Cr.No.04 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant ANTICIPATORY BAIL to the petitioner in the EVENT OF ARREST pending investigation in Crime.No.4 of 2025 On the file of Inspector of police, CBCID Vellore police station, Vellore to secure the ends of justice. For Petitioner(s):

P.Loganathan For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 318(2), 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.04 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused involved in an iridium scam, wherein they promised that they were likely to have a huge mineral value iridium with them and to encash the same, they needed financial assistance from others, and accordingly collected a sum of Rs.23 lakhs from five persons. Further, it is stated that the petitioner alone has separately collected Rs.21 lakhs. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had collected only a sum of Rs. 2,92,000/- and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The said contention is strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), who would submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary, as he is alleged to have cheated several persons and collected a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/-. He further submitted that there are two previous cases registered against the petitioner, which clearly demonstrate that he has misused the liberty granted by this Court. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on either side.

6. In view of the above, considering the petitioner's antecedents, the nature of the allegations, and the magnitude of the amount allegedly involved, this Court is of the opinion that the defence of custodial interrogation cannot be outrightly rejected by granting anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner is not entitled to grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 23-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID Vellore Police Station, Vellore District.

Cr.No.04 of 2025.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 23-03-2026