Sumathi v. The State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.07.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

1. Sumathi 2.Santhosh Kumar @ Santhosh Pandi 3.Rajesh Kannan ... Petitioners Vs.

State represented by, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station Salem (Crime No.01 of 2024) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.01 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Suresh Sankar For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 109, 420, 465, 468, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No. 01 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. Page No.1 of 4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused cheated a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- from the defacto complainant on the false promise of securing a government job in TNPSC (JE). Hence, the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed on him. 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 opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. He further submitted that this is a case of job bracketing and the accused persons cheated nearly 33 victims to the tune of Rs.3,50,50,000/- and from this defacto complainant, the accused persons received a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- and they have also cheated by giving fake appointment order to the poor victims. He also submits that in this case, there are totally 5 accused, Page No.2 of 4

except A3, other accused persons were absconding. He also submits that 3rd accused was arrested and enlarged on bail.

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

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), this Court feels that the petitioners committed a very serious offence and the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary for the purpose of investigation. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 14.07.2025 To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.6 Salem.

2. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station Salem

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page No.3 of 4

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.

nr 14.07.2025 Page No.4 of 4