Saravanakumar v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Saravanakumar

2. Philominal Mary ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by its:- Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Tiruvarur District - 612604 (Crime No.96 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of the arrest in Crime No.96 of 2026 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Siva Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4) and 336(3) of BNS, in Crime No.96 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, while searching for employment opportunities abroad through online platforms, came across a consultancy by name "Senthilandavar Abroad Job Consultancy". It is

alleged that, on the assurance given by the petitioners, who were acting as agents of the said consultancy, the de facto complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,50,003/- towards securing employment in a foreign country. However, the petitioners neither arranged the promised employment nor refunded the amount received from the de facto complainant, thereby cheating him. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is no way connected to this case and has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that as many as six previous cases of a similar nature are pending against the petitioners. He would further submit that, in the event of the petitioners being enlarged on anticipatory bail, there is every likelihood of their absconding and indulging in similar offences in future. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6.From the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it is seen that the petitioners have got six previous cases of similar nature, which clearly demonstrates that whenever they were granted bail by the Courts, they have misused the liberty granted to them. In view of the same, if the petitioners are enlarged on bail, they may be emboldened to indulge in similar offences in future without fear of law. Hence, taking into consideration of interest of the society at large, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

7.Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 04-06-2026 kv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate-I, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Vaduvoor Police Station, Tiruvarur District - 612604

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

kv 04-06-2026