Bagiradhan @ Bagirathan v. The State Rep By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Bagiradhan @ Bagirathan ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai District.

Crime No.16 of 2025 ... 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 in Crime No.16 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.VR.Appaswamee For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

O R D E R

1/4

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC, in Crime No.16 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.08.2025, one Anandharaj, Area Manager, Credi Access Grameen Limited, Vandavasi, lodged a complaint before the respondent police. It is alleged that the petitioner, while serving as the Manager of the Vandavasi Branch, had sanctioned loans to 10 customers to the tune of Rs.10,01,000/-. Thereafter, he approached the customers stating that the loan amount had been wrongly credited to their accounts and directed them to return the same. It is further alleged that, on such insistence, the customers repaid the said sum, but instead of depositing it into the company's account, the petitioner misappropriated the amount for his own use. Based on the complaint, the present FIR has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as Manager of Vandavasi Branch, he acted only under the instructions of higher officials to achieve deposit targets. All amounts collected were duly credited to the company, and no misappropriation was committed. Despite this, he 2/4

was forced to pay Rs.3.30 lakhs during enquiry. The present complaint is false and has been foisted with an intention to harass him. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, submitting that the petitioner had misappropriated a huge sum. Out of Rs.10,01,000/-, only Rs.97,980/- has been accounted for, leaving a balance of Rs.9,03,220/- payable by the petitioner.

5. Considering the gravity of the allegations and the huge amount alleged to have been misappropriated, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. 16.09.2025 cda K.RAJASEKAR, J.

cda 3/4

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

16.09.2025 4/4