Devi v. State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Devi W/o.Murugan, 83 H /17 Manali New Town, VTC, Sadayakupakkam, Manali New Town, Chennai-103.

2. Murgan S/o.Mani, 83 H /17 Manali New Town, VTC, Sadayakupakkam, Manali New Town, Chennai-103.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. by, The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station (Crime) Chennai (Crime No. Not Known) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime.No.Not Known/2026, on the file of Respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

M/s.S.Marshall For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE )

ORDER

The petitioners herein apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) BNS, in Crime No.not known of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the Senior Manager of LIC lodged a complaint with the respondent police alleging that the 1st petitioner, while working as an LIC agent, had misappropriated money belonging to certain policy holders. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are merely LIC Agents. He submitted that, even according to the prosecution, the amount allegedly cheated is only Rs. 8 lakhs. He further submitted that, given their status as agents, the question of them collecting money directly from subscribers is an impossibility. Therefore, the complaint itself is ex-facie false. Hence, he prayed to enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail. 4.However, the said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), who submitted that the Petitioners received a sum of Rs. 85,00,000/- of public money, and the investigating agency has not yet been able to recover even a single farthing. He further contended that unless

the Petitioners are taken into custodial interrogation, tracking and identifying the layering of the said amount would be extremely difficult. This Court finds merit in the contention of the learned Government Advocate. Furthermore, although the 1st Petitioner is a woman, considering the massive involvement of public money to the tune of Rs. 85 lakhs, this Court is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the Petitioners on anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

03-06-2026 GBI To

1. The Inspector of Police, H-5, New Washermenpet Police Station (Crime) Chennai 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

GBI 03-06-2026