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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Kalaiselvan ..Petitioner Vs State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam police Station, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu -607 805.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner in the event of her arrest by the respondent police in Crime No. 174 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police i.e on the file of the Inspector of police, Muthandikuppam Police station. For Petitioner:

Mr.S.Mohan Raj For Respondent:

Ms.R.S.Indira Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 303(2), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 340(2), 61(2) and 111(4) of BNS Act, 2023 and 43, 43A, 66C and 66D of Information Technology Act 2000 in Crime No.174 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused have misappropriated and cheated money to the tune of Rs.2,49,00,000/-. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that the petitioner and other accused cheated to the tune of Rs. 2 crores 49 lakhs. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the

submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that unless the petitioner is taken on custody, the question of layering of money could not be unearthed could not be faulted. Hence, considering such well merited submission made by the learned Government Advocate, this Court could not find any merit in the application. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15-06-2026 SHL To

1. The Judicial Magistrate -1, Panruti 2.The Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam police Station, Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu -607 805.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 15-06-2026