Malarvizhi v. 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.16522 of 2025 Malarvizhi ...Petitioner Vs.

The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City Salem District (Cr.No.14 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in Cr.No.14 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioner :

Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi 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. 14 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner on the false promise 1/4

of securing a Government job, had received Rs.15 lakhs from the defacto complainant and cheated him. Hence, the complaint.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner who is the Block Development Officer, on making false promise that he will secure a government job to the relative of the defacto complainant, had received Rs.15 lakhs and cheated him. Hence he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and 2/4

submissions made on either side and since the petitioner after receiving Rs.15 lakhs from the defacto complainant, neither secure any job nor return the amount to the defacto complainant and has committed a serious offence which requires custodial interrogation of the petitioner, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

23.06.2025 gv 1.The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station, Salem City Salem District

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J 3/4

gv CRL.OP.No.16522 of 2025 23.06.2025 4/4