A.Krishnamurthy v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.03.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN A.Krishnamurthy, S/o.Aadhikesavan ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep,by District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.12/2025.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in crime No.12/2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.Prem Kumar For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316, 318 read with 315 and 351 (3) of BNSS in Crime No.12 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant supplied goods to Krishnakumar Proprietor of Sri Kalikambal for value of 1/4

Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore), out of which Rs.10 laksh was paid by RTG's and the balance left upaid. In spite of repeated efforts taken to recover the balance amount, but all his efforts went in vain. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It was 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 submitted that this a case of cheating the de-facto complainant to the worth about Rs.2.76 lakhs. He further submits that the petitioner has 3 previous cases in a similar nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

2/4

6. Taking into consideration the amount involved in this case and also taking note of the fact that the petitioner has got three previous cases in a similar offence, which clearly demonstrates that the petitioner has misused the liberty granted by this Court, hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 25.03.2026 mp To 1.The District Crime Branch, Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 3/4

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.7495 of 2026 25.03.2026 4/4