Syed Sardhar v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 27.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.5044 of 2026 Syed Sardhar ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest of the petitioner by the respondent police in Cr.No.57 of 2025, on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

For Petitioner : Mr.E.Devakumar For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506(1) of 1/4

IPC in Crime No.57 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegations against the petitioner are that he, in connivance with the other accused, was involved in collecting a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- from two victims on the promise of securing Government employment for them, and thereafter cheated the defacto complainant and the other victim, which led to the registration of the present case. Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking anticipatory bail.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was received from the defacto complainant, out of which Rs.5,15,000/- has already been repaid. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- from one victim and Rs.25,00,000/- from another victim were collected. In total, a sum of Rs.32,00,000/- was collected, out of which only Rs.9.5 lakhs has been repaid and the remaining amount is yet to be paid. It is a case of job racketing. Hence, he vehemently opposed the 2/4

grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the fact that a substantial amount remains unpaid, and that the defacto complainant has allegedly been cheated, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 27.02.2026 Vv To

1. Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.5044 of 2026 27.02.2026 4/4

5/4