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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :23.06.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN CRL.OP.No.16562 of 2025 1.Sridevi 2.Prabu 3.Prakash ...Petitioners Vs.

The Inspector of Police DCB Police Station Villupuram District (Cr.No.32/2023) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Cr.No.32 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner :

Mr.Thiyagarajan For Respondent :

Mr.R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No. 32 of 2023, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners are alleged to have 1/4

received the amount of the defacto complainant on the false promise of returning the same with profit and cheated him . Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that after receipt of the amount, the entire amount was withdrawn and handed over to the A1, who was arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are in no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that on the false promise of returning the amount with profit, the amount of Rs.15 lakhs of the defacto complainant has been transferred through NEFT to the petitioners' account and thereafter the petitioners had cheated him. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on either side and since there is no proof to show that after 2/4

withdrawal, the amount was handed over to A1, the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly this petition is dismissed.

23.06.2025 gv G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J gv 3/4

To 1.The Inspector of Police DCB Police Station Villupuram District

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. CRL.OP.No.16562 of 2025 23.06.2025 4/4