Mariappan 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 Mariappan S/o.Natarajan, No.47, Nattar Street Main, Murungapakkam, Mudaliarpet, Puducherry-605004.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by, The Inspector of Police DCB, Cuddalore, Cr.No.8/2026 ..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 the arrest in Cr.No.8 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

M/s.P.Senthil For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC (318 of BNS), 1860 r/w, Sections 76(1) and 4(1) of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 in Crime No.8 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.There are a total of three accused in this case, and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. It is alleged that all the accused conspired together by collecting Rs.11,00,000/- from 82 members by way of a Diwali chit scheme and thereby committed the offence of cheating.

3.The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been implicated as an accused solely because he was not in a position to repay certain amounts to the subscribers of a Diwali chit. He further submitted that the co-accused, namely the Petitioner's wife and daughter, were already granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 6450 of 2026, dated 12.03.2026. 4.The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to the fact that, according to the First Information Report (FIR), although there were 150 subscribers, the Petitioner had already paid the promised amounts to 40 members. He contended that there was no intention to cheat on the part of the Petitioner. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. 5.However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

Side) for the respondent strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the public money is involved and that, unless the petitioner is taken into custody, the question of tracing the flow of the amount could not be properly investigated. Such contention cannot be faulted.

is of the firm view that it is not desirable to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail at this stage. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

03-06-2026 GBI To

1. The Inspector of Police DCB, Cuddalore.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

GBI 03-06-2026