Ramachandran @ Shyam v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. P.Ramachandran @ Shyam S/o Palanisamy, No. 2/44, Ottar Street, Kalichettipatti, Ponnari, Namakkal.

2. Arul Rozario Arul S/o Arul,No. 17, Madha Kovil Street,Sendamangalam,Namakkal District ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Namakkal District.

Crime No.Not Known of 2026.

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest concerned in Crime No.Now Known of 2026 pending on the file of the Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.Neelavathi For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.Not known of 2026 on the file of the

respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused induced the defacto complainant and others to pay a total sum of Rs.80,00,000/- on the promise of securing employment in Canada and also collected their certificates. However, the accused neither arranged employment nor returned the money or documents, thereby cheated them. Hence, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police opposed the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner along with other four accused, had cheated about 25 job aspirants by promising employment in Canada and collected a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- from them. However, they failed to provide any such employment. He further submitted that no money has been recovered so far, and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

5. Taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner does not deserve the grant of anticipatory bail. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would jeopardize the prosecution case. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02-04-2026 DRL To 1.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Namakkal..

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 02-04-2026