A.Kanthamma v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 02.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN A.Kanthamma, W/o.Aathinarayanan ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, Economics Offences Wing, Chennai.

Crime No.15 of 2025.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in respect of crime No.15 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, EOW Police Station, Chennai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Raja 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 406, 420, 120(B) IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, in Crime No. 15 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/4

2. The prosecution of the case is that the petitioner was run a fraudulent Deepavali fund scheme in various names and cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence, the present complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that, the only overt act pleaded against the petitioner is that, she has only introduced the customer to the accused. 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 strongly opposed the bail application on the ground that the total amount alleged to have been cheated by the petitioner is Rs.8,68,56,800/- and there are totally 14 victims in this case. He further submitted that unless the petitioner is taken into custody, recover of the amount would not be possible. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. The said submission made by the learned Government Advocate cannot be faulted. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 02.04.2026 mp To 1.The Inspector of Police, Economics Offences Wing, Chennai.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

mp Crl.OP.No.8237 of 2026 02.04.2026 4/4