Naresh @ Naresh Babu v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Naresh @ Naresh Babu ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

(Crime No.7 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.7 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Karthik

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 420 and 34 of IPc, in Crime No.7 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1 / 4

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner conspired with other accused and misappropriated the funds of the de facto complainant's company viz., M/s.Kwang Sung Brake India Private Limited (KSBIL) to the tune of Rs.4,10,82,699/-. Hence the case. 3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the accused had caused a huge loss to the de facto complainant's company viz., M/s.Kwang Sung Brake India Private Limited (KSBIL) to the tune of Rs.4,10,82,699/-.

2 / 4

6.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the nature of allegation and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 30.04.2026 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.

2. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3 / 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ham 30.04.2026 2/2 4 / 4