Reshma@Jeenath v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 12-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Reshma@Jeenath ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, R1, Mambalam Police Station, Chennai.

Crime.No. 185/2023 ..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 Crime No.185 of 2023 on the file of respondent police in the event of her arrest. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Mohan Babu P For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 403, 406, 420, 120(B) of IPC, 1860, in Crime No.185 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that based on the false promise that the petitioner will secure a job for the de facto complainant in an IT company, the de facto complainant had given a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- to the petitioner.

However, the petitioner had neither secured the said job nor returned the money paid by the petitioner. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that the petitioner has two (2) previous cases of similar nature pending against him. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioner has got two previous cases of similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that whenever he was granted bail by the Courts, he has misused the liberty granted to him. In view of the same, if the

petitioner is enlarged on bail, he may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 12-03-2026 rap To

1. The Inspector of Police, R1, Mambalam Police Station, Chennai.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3. The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 12-03-2026