Jasmin Pervin @ Jasmine Farveen v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Jasmin Pervin @ Jasmine Farveen ... Petitioner/A3 Vs.

1.The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Thiruneelakudi Police Station, Tiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

2.The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru City, Karnataka ... Respondents (Crime No.291 of 2025) 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.291 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Kartik Soundararajan For Mr.Arunkumar Shanmugam For Respondent :

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

O R D E R

1/4

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 336(3), 338, 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which is sections 406, 417, 468, r/w 34, 467, 506 of the Indian Penal Code in Crime No.291 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the defacto complainant allegedly paid a sum of Rs.1,15,00,000/- to A1 for arranging a finance loan of Rs.30 Crores and that the loan was not arranged. The entire allegation of receipt of money, issuance of cheque, and alleged forgery are specifically attributed only to A1 and A2. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the defacto complainant and that the petitioner seeks the relief of interstate anticipatory bail for the purpose of approaching the concerned Court for seeking interstate anticipatory bail. Hence, prays to grant interstate anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the first respondent. 2/4

5. From the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is clear that, this is a case where there is a complaint of cheating a huge amount. Since the second respondent police is from the State of Karnataka, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is not in a position to get any instructions.

6. Taking into consideration the allegation levelled in the First Information Report, this Court is of the view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on interstate anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13.03.2026 ssi C.KUMARAPPAN , J.

ssi To:

1.The Inspector of Police, Thiruneelakudi Police Station, Tiruvidaimaruthur Taluk, Thanjavur District.

3/4

2.The Inspector of Police, Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru City, Karnataka 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

13.03.2026 4/4