M.Chandru v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR M.Chandru ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Represented by The Inspector of Police K2-Ayyanavaram Police Station Chennai 600 023.

(Crime No.24 of 2025).

... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.24 of 2025 on the file of K2-Ayyanavaram Police Station, Chennai.

1/5

For petitioner : Mr.S.Magimai Raj For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2) and 316(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.24 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The contention of the petitioner is that the defacto complainant was not known to the petitioner. The defacto complainant's sonin-law had transferred some amount to the petitioner without the knowledge of the defacto complainant and his wife to save money. There is some dispute 2/5

between the petitioner and the defacto complainant's son-in-law, which has been now projected as a job racketing case. He further submitted that in this case, A1 has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2716 of 2025, by an order dated 17.02.2025.

3. Mr.R.Vinothraja, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that A1 is none other than the wife of A2. Since she is a lady, she had been granted anticipatory bail and there are materials to show that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.18 lakhs from the defacto complainant on the promise of getting a job in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board as Assistant Engineer and he further submitted that materials have been collected and statements have been recorded in this regard.

3/5

4. In view of the same, this Court is of the view that since it is a job racketing case, where there cannot be any concrete evidence, thorough investigation including custodial interrogation is necessary to collect documents. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13.06.2025 dna To:

1.The V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police K2-Ayyanavaram Police Station Chennai 600 023.

(Crime No.24 of 2025).

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras.

4/5

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

dna 13.06.2025 5/5