Ananthi.R v. The State Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.Nos.21578 & 21683 of 2025 1.R. Ananthi ... Petitioner/A2 in Clr.O.P.No.21578 of 2025 2.Shri Vidhya Pillayarpillai ... Petitioner/A4 in Crl.O.P.No.21683 of 2025 Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, Vepery, Chennai - 07.

... Respondent in both Crl.O.Ps (Cr.No.112 of 2025) 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 connection with Cr.No.112 of 2025 on the file respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.A.Abdul Rahman For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners herein, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.112 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against these petitioners is that these petitioners joining hands with other accused collected a total sum of Rs.1,62,00,000/- as an investment from the defacto complainant by giving a false promise to make more profit and subsequently, neither shared the profit nor returned back the money. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed 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 submitted that these petitioners are actively participated in the business transactions and they were aware that huge amount has been received by them and they have 2/6

siphoned of the entire money and only a portion of amount has been recovered from the accused and four more complaints have been received by the respondent police against the accused. He further submitted that A1 has been arrested in this case and has been detained under the Preventive Detention Act. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the nature of allegation involved in this case and also considering the fact that only a portion of amount was recovered from the accused and that four more complaints have also been alleged to have received by the respondent police, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions stand dismissed.

14.10.2025 smv To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, Vepery, Chennai - 07.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

3/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

smv Crl.O.P.Nos.21578 & 21683 of 2025 14.10.2025 4/6