Sridevi v. State Rep. By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-09-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO. 21814 of 2025 1.Sridevi 2.Prabhu 3.Prakash Petitioners Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police DCB, Villupuram District.

Crime No. 32 of 2023 Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Cr.No. 32 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Dhasarathan For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC in Crime No.32 of 2023, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners had 1/6

received a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant under the guise of "High Returns" and thereafter, they had cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after receipt of the amount from the de-facto complainant, the amount was handed over to A1, who was arrested and released on bail. He further submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He also submits that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for their release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the de-facto complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- through NEFT to the petitioners' account for "High Returns". After receiving money, the petitioners had cheated the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/6

5. Taking into consideration of the fact that since there is no proof to show that after withdrawal of Rs.15,00,000/- and the amount was handed over to A1, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much required in this case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 22.09.2025 MSM To 1.The Inspector of Police DCB, Villupuram District.

Crime No. 32 of 2023

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/6

K. RAJASEKAR, J., MSM CRL OP NO. 21814 of 2025 26.09.2025 4/6