Arunkumar v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25516 of 2025 1.Arunkumar 2.Venkatesh .... Petitioners/A6 & A10 Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Salem District Crime No. 12 of 2024.

...Respondent

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No. 12 of 2024 pending on the file of Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem District.

For Petitionera : Mr.M.Venkadesh Kumar For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 12 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 467, 408, and 409 of the IPC, 1860 against the petitioners, the present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners who were employed as Relationship Executives in the Sriram Finance, Kolathur Branch, Salem by fabrication of documents and forged loan applications cheated the company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/- Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submitted that the petitioners are no way connected with the alleged offence. He further submitted that the customer has given fabricated documents and on believing the same, the petitioners have released the amount. He further submitted that 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 case of the prosecution as put forth by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police, opposing for grant of anticipatory bail is that A2 viz., Silamparasan, who was working as Branch Team Leader in the defacto complainant's company, along with other Executives by furnishing false loan applications had cheated the 2/4

company to the tune of Rs.1,11,20,000/-. He would further submit that custodial interrogation of the petitioners are very much required.

5. Taking into the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioners and so far no amount is received, if the anticipatory bail is granted to the petitioners at this stage, the petitioners is likely to tamper the evidence and hamper the investigation. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 17.09.2025 MSM 3/4

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

MSM To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.VI, Salem. 2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Salem District Crime No. 12 of 2024.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.25516 of 2025 17.09.2025 4/4