Ramkumar v. The State Represented By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Ramkumar ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal District.

(Crime No.02 of 2026) ... 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 his arrest concerned in Crime No.02 of 2026 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : M/s.P.Neelavathi For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B, 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, corresponding to Sections 318(4), 336(3), 340(2), 61, 296 and 351 of BNS in Crime No.02 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant came into contact with the petitioner/A3 in the year 2023, who introduced the other accused. A1 and A2 represented that they could arrange employment opportunities in Canada, inducing the complainant and others to agree. It is alleged that 25 persons, including the complainant, paid a total sum of Rs.80,00,000/- in installments and also handed over their certificates for processing. However, the accused neither sent them abroad nor returned the money or documents, thereby cheating them. Based on the complaint, a case was initially registered by the District Crime Branch, Sivagangai. Subsequently, as the occurrence fell within the jurisdiction of Namakkal District, the case was transferred and re-registered by the respondent police.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the allegations against the petitioner are that he had cheated 25 persons on the pretext of securing employment in Canada and, in that process, received a sum of Rs.80 lakhs. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the said amount has not yet been recovered and that, unless the petitioner is taken into custody, it would be difficult to secure the same. It is further submitted that as many as 25 victims have been cheated by the petitioner. Having regard to the gravity of the allegations and taking into consideration the fact that the anticipatory bail petitions filed by the co-accused have already been dismissed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 10.04.2026 kv To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Namakkal.

2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Namakkal District.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 10.04.2026 4/4