Arjun @ Karthi Shanmugam v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Arjun @ Karthi Shanmugam ..Petitioner Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Stat ion, Cuddalore District.

Cr.No.13 of 2024.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with the Cr.No.13 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

M/s.Veera Santhi S For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.13 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the Managing

Director who induced the de facto complainant to invest with a false promise of high returns. The de facto complainant has invested to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/- and the same has not been returned. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was innocent and that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant 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 total number of victims have reached 105 and further complaints are still being received in this case. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner is serious in nature and petitioner being Managing director

has induced investors and has received more than Rs.3 Crores and the affected persons are 105 in number. Though, FIR is of the year 2024, the learned Govt Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that so far no amount has been recovered and unless the petitioner is taken on custody, the unearthing of the money would be very difficult. Such contention cannot be found faulted. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 21-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Cuddalore

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Stat ion, Cuddalore District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 21-04-2026