Kasiraja v. State Represented By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
1. Kasiraja Petitioner(s) Vs
1. State represented by The Inspector of Police, T-12, SElaiyur Police Station, Crime No.146 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to grant anticipatory grant bail to the Petitioner in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.146 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police and thus render jusice. For Petitioner(s):
M.Jaikumar For Intervenor Mr.A.Charles Darwin For Respondent(s):
Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate Crl.side
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 316(4), 318(4), 344 of BNS, and 66(c) of IT Act, in Crime No.146 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.
2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Manager of Dr.Mohan's Diabetes Speciality Centre Pvt. Ltd., in the year 2024 and between April 2024 and December 2024, he was in-charge of handling the daily cash transactions including credit card payments, UPI payments of the defacto complainant's centre. Taking advantage of his position, he has diverted a substantial sum of Rs.32.99 lakhs to credit card accounts of the petitioner, his wife and also to the various persons through UPI payments. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner already resigned from the job on 05.02.2025 and at the time of resignation, he was asked to pay Rs.3,700/- based on the audit conducted. After some time a false complaint has been lodged as if the petitioner has misappropriated Rs.32.99 lakhs and he has not misappropriated the same and he further submitted that the co-accused have been already granted bail in Crl.OP No.12195 of 2025 by an order dated 21.08.2025. He also submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is false. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the period during which the transactions were taken place from April 2024 to December 2024, he was handling the daily cash transactions and other payments. Totally Rs.32.99
lakhs have been diverted to the various persons including his wife. The coaccused/wife of the petitioner has been granted bail by this Court, on the ground that she was not an employee under the defacto complainant's centre. He also submitted that so far there is no recovery effected, hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reported that there are totally three accused involved in this case and one person was granted anticipatory bail and since she is being a lady and she is not an employee of the defacto complainants Centre. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6.Considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the records and it reveals that the petitioner was employed as in-charge and he is responsible for daily cash transactions and other accounts of the Pharmacy wherein he is able to diverted the funds to the extent of Rs.32.99 lakhs and it is a huge amount and so far there is no recovery effected, hence, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner there is a possibility of hampering with the investigation. Hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
28-10-2025 1/2 gbi
To 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, T-12, SElaiyur Police Station, Crime No.146 of 2025 2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
K.RAJASEKAR J.
gbi CRL OP No. 14301 of 28-10-2025