Chinnamari @ Muthu v. The State Represented By Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25912 of 2025 T.Chinnamari @ Muthu ... Petitioner Vs.
The State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing 2, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
... Respondents (Cr.No.18 of 2020) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Cr.No.18 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : M/s.R.Sripriya Raghavan For Respondents : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section
316. 314(2), 61 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.18 of 2020, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
1/4
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he joined hands with other accused collected sum of Rs.6,97,65,821/- from 84 depositors and subsequently failed to return the money and thereby cheated them. Hence, the present complaint has been lodged.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not the director of Company he is only attempted to intermediate and negotiate the parties for the purpose of resolving the issue and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that co-accused in this case already arrested and subsequently released on bail. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent submitted that though the case was registered in the year 2020 and keep on investigating the case, after collecting various documents they able to arrest two persons though arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner herein seeking anticipatory bail and statement recorded from the accused reveals that the petitioner benefited Rs.22.5 lakhs from the said company and so far no money is recovered. He also submitted that 2/4
Investigation in this case is still pending. Hence, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), nature of offence and also the fact that the petitioner benefited from the company and collected a sum of Rs.6,97,65,821/- and 84 depositors/victims have been cheated, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 26.09.2025 ssi To:
1.The Judicial Magistrate-IX, Saidapet.
2.The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing 2, Guindy, Chennai - 600 032.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3/4
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
ssi Crl.O.P.No.25912 of 2025 26.09.2025 4/4