Vijayaraghavan v. State Rep By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. VIJAYARAGHAVAN S/o. Swaminathan, Plot No.6B, Door No.3/16, Rajeswari Nagar, Annexe, 3rd Cross Street, Karambakkam, Thiruvallur 600 116 Petitioner(s) Vs

1. State Rep by, Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.

1019/2024)P Respondent(s) PRAYER To grant Anticipatory bail to the petitioner in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.1019/2024 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Vinoth Kumar A M.Saravanan

K.Anushiya N.Selvakumar R.Baskar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

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.1019 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the de facto complainant purchased two cars from the petitioner and also paid money by arranging a loan. It is further alleged that the petitioner was in possession of a car under the pretext of arranging a loan; however, only one car was handed over, thereby cheated the defacto complainant.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that a false case has been foisted against the petitioner. Hence, he prays for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner is a private agent for car loan purchases. The defacto complainant purchased two cars from the petitioner using a bank loan. One car i.e., Mahindra KUV 100 bearing No.TN 07 CF 7202 was handed over, but the another car was not handed over, thereby cheated the defacto complainant. He further submitted that the car has not been recovered and the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the nature of offence committed by the petitioner, and taking note of the fact that the car has not been recovered and the investigation is pending, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 26-09-2025 Mpa Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District. 2.State Rep by, Inspector of Police, R-9, Valasaravakkam Police Station, Chennai District. (Crime No.

1019/2024)P 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

mpa CRL OP No. 20558 of 26-09-2025