Sadhasivam v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25.03.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Sadhasivam, S/o.Appachi ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, Coimbatore District.
2. The State of Maharastra Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Pune City Cyber Police Station, Pune City.
Crime No.23 of 2026.
... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on interstate anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the 1st and 2nd respondent police in Crime No.23 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Pune City Cyber Police Station, Pune City.
For Petitioner : Mr.Dhilipan Pandian For Respondents : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) of BNS read with 66(D) of IT Act, 2000 in Crime No.23 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/5
2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant engaged in a share trading and he had open a demat account with Nirmal Bang Securities Pvt. Ltd. On October 2025, the de-facto complainant received a phone call from one person viz., Divya Rupadiya introduced herself to him and had stated that he could earn 300% profit through this trading plan and initially, the complainant would have to pay 10% service charges on the profit. A Separate bank account was also opened and on the instructions of the accused, he transferred money to that account. A WhatsApp group was also created. Totally, the de facto complainant transferred a sum of Rs.14,25,65,965/- to this account. The further case is that though the bank account of the de facto complainant on the fraudulent site showed a balance of Rs.39,26,42,800/-, he was blocked from withdrawing funds and the accused demanded the de facto complainant to pay further commissions, income tax and security deposits. On being realized that he was cheated, the de facto complainant has filed the present complaint.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He would further submit that he is not at all a named accused in this case and that, based on the confession of the other accused, some of the police officials 2/5
have been visiting his residence. It is further submitted that he is a local resident of Coimbatore and has no contacts in Maharashtra. Taking advantage of his inability to approach the jurisdictional Court for anticipatory bail and also on account of his lack of acquaintance with legal procedures to engage a lawyer, the respondent police are attempting to arrest the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation and abide by any other stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the settled legal position that grant of anticipatory bail particularly in an interstate matters, is an exception and not a routine one. This Court considering the fact that the petitioner is a resident of a remote place of Chettipalayam in Kinathukadavu Taluk, this Court is inclined to grant an interstate anticipatory bail for a period of two weeks, subject to certain conditions.
3/5
6. Accordingly, interim interstate anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioner subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall surrender before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi, within seven(7) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
(ii) On such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on condition that he shall execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the said Magistrate. (iii) Within two weeks of such surrender before the above said Magistrate, the petitioner shall seeks appropriate relief before any of the jurisdictional Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The petition is ordered accordingly.
25.03.2026 mp To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.
2. The Inspector of Police, Pune City Cyber Police Station, Pune City. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
mp Crl.OP.No.6790 of 2026 25.03.2026 5/5