G.Vihari Krishnan Reddy v. State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN G.Vihari Krishnan Reddy S/o.Mr.Sundara Rami Reddy.G, Residing at No.16, Sai Enclave, Sai Nagar, Porur Garden Phase-I, Vanagaram, Chennai-600 095.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep.by, Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Avadi Police Commissionate, Chennai-600 054.

Cr.No.128 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner/accused in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.128 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

G.Nagarajan For Respondent(s):

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 318(4) of BNS and 66 D of I.T.Act., in Crime No. 128 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner was involved in online fraud and that about 17 complaints have been received against him from various States. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prayed for 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 the petitioner was involved in serious online fraud and that about 17 complaints have been received against him from various States. He further submitted that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would jeopardize the prosecution case. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent, considering the seriousness of the allegations against him, and as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), custodial interrogation of the petitioner appears to be necessary.

6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

24-03-2026 MPA To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Wing, Avadi Police Commissionate, Chennai-600 054.

Cr.No.128 of 2025.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

MPA 24-03-2026