M.Rajasekar v. State By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN M.Rajasekar ..Petitioner(s) Vs State by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent in connection with Crime No.20 of 2024.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.Kumanaraja For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, apprehending arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in Crime No.20 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, induced the defacto complainant and several other individuals under false pretences and received money to the tune of Rs.70 Lakhs from them. Despite receiving the huge amount, the petitioner failed to fulfill his obligations or return the money, thereby cheating the victims. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner never received such a huge amount as alleged by the prosecution, but had only received a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs. Since the petitioner is cooperative and the dispute is largely financial, the learned counsel prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The said contention was strongly opposed by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent. He reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner is involved in a major financial fraud involving huge amount collected from various innocent people. He further submitted that multiple persons are interconnected in this illegal network and the investigation is still pending. If the petitioner is granted prearrest bail at this stage, there is a strong prima facie likelihood of the petitioner absconding or tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses.

5. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, the nature of the allegations, and the gravity of the offence involving a large-scale financial fraud, this Court is mindful of the serious social and economic impact on the victims who lost their hard-earned money. Though the petitioner claims to have settled a minor portion, the active complicity of the petitioner in cheating multiple persons poses a significant threat. Granting pre-arrest bail at this juncture would severely prejudice the ongoing investigation, and prevent the police from unearthing the complete financial network. In view of the severity of the offence and the pending stage of the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail at this stage.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 16-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Jeni To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Panruti, Cuddalore District. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore District.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

Jeni 16-06-2026