Raji v. State By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.09.2025

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI Crl.O.P.No.22188 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.16494 of 2025

1. Raji

2. Velu

3. Chinnathambi

4. Velayutham ... Petitioners -vsThe State of rep by, The Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.303 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of they are arrest in Crime No.303 of 2025 pending investigation before the respondent police.

For Petitioners :

Mr.M.Balaji For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor :

Mr.E.Kannadasan ***********

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 60, 318(1), 336, 344, 296(b), 115(2) and 351(3) 1/4

of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.303 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of prosecution is that from a dispute regarding a chit fund business styled "Sri Murugan Enterprises". The petitioners are falsely implicated due to business rivalry and personal vendetta, as no substantive material has been collected to show criminal conspiracy or cheating. Hence this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioners threatened the defacto complainant. He would also submit that if they is released on bail, they were hamper the investigation and tamper the witnesses. However, he would vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering gravity of offences committed by the petitioners and the fact that the intervenor raised objections stating that the second petitioner filed I.P.No.9 of 2025 and they have chit near about 35 depositors to the tune of Rs.25,75,000/-, it requires detailed investigation and it they are released on bail, there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, this 2/4

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous petition is also closed. 11.09.2025 rna Note :

1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the Official Website of this Court.

2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in Official Website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate-I at Attur, Salem District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ethappur Police Station, Salem District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras 3/4

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rna Crl.O.P.No.22188 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.16494 of 2025 11.09.2025 4/4