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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR 1.Vasudevan 2.Geetha .. Petitioners Vs.

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

(Cr.No.131 of 2025) .. Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.131 of 2025 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, Tiruvallur District. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Page No.1 of 4

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.131 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant, Saraswathi, is a widow who lost her husband in a road accident and received an insurance compensation amount of Rs.16,00,000/-. The petitioners, a husband and wife, who are known to Saraswathi, promised her that the amount could be invested in landed property to generate good returns. Based on this promise, Saraswathi paid Rs.14,50,000/- to the petitioners through a bank. However, the petitioners neither purchased any property for Saraswathi nor returned the amount. Instead, they claim to have paid the amount to one Rajendiran and lodged a complaint in CSR.No.765 of 2023, which has not resulted in any action.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent, have not committed any offence, as alleged by the prosecution and have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays Page No.2 of 4

to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and reiterated the prosecution case.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that Saraswathi paid a sum of Rs.14,50,000/- to the petitioners to purchase a property, is well-documented through bank records. In contrast, there is no documentary evidence to support the claim of the petitioners that the amount was paid to Rajendiran. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition.

7. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 29.07.2025 cda Page No.3 of 4

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

cda To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Poonamallee, Tiruvallur District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, Tiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

29.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4