Venkatesan J v. State Rep By Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Venkatesan. J ... Petitioner Vs.

1. State Rep by Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

Crime No.254/2024 (and Now transfer to)

2. State rep by Inspector of Police, CBCID, Chennai.

Crime No.Not known 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 the event of his arrest in crime number not known of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Selvi George For Respondents: Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 408, 420 and 477A of IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 in Crime No. Not know of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/5

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is employed in the Tamil Nadu Open University and was in-charge of conducting examinations, recording of marks, printing of certificates and issuance of the same. It is further alleged that, during the year 2023, an internal enquiry was conducted by the University with regard to the certificates issued to one Appadurai Fletcher, and it was revealed that a false certificate had been issued to him, though he had not appeared for the examination, in collusion with certain staff members. Based on the same, a complaint was lodged and an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.254 of 2024 on the file of the first respondent police, which was subsequently transferred to the second respondent, without assigning a fresh crime number.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is only a temporary employee and is working under the directions of his superior officers, and that he has not committed any offence. He would further submit that the co-accused have already been granted bail. It is also contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. He would further submit that the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court and to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner, being an electronic data processing staff of the Tamil Nadu Open University, had illegally used login credentials and awarded practical marks to candidates who had not appeared for the examination. He would further submit that, though the co-accused have been granted bail, this Court had recorded that there were no specific or serious overt acts attributed to them. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Upon consideration of the submissions made on either side, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, attributing a direct role in the commission of the offence. Though it is contended that custodial interrogation is not required, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations, particularly involving manipulation of academic records in an educational institution, this Court is of the view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage would not be appropriate.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 24.04.2026 kv 3/5

To

1. The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai.

3. The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Chennai.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 24.04.2026 5/5