Santhosh v. The State Rep. By Its

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 25.09.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.26388 of 2025 Santhosh ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. by it's the Inspector of Police, EOW Tiruvannamalai Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.2 of 2025) 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.2 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 316, 316(4), 336, 340, 344 of BNS Act, 2023 (Corresponding Section 406, 408, 468, 471, 477A of IPC) in Crime No.2 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is the member and Assistant Manager of Co-operative Society and appraiser of the Co-operative Bank colluded money from various borrowers pledged their gold jewels and obtained loan to the extent of Rs.2,88,72,180/-. The petitioner is arrayed as A21 and a sum of Rs.16,99,000/- worth of gold jewels were pledged in his name. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he was only a borrower and his name was misused in the transaction and he has been falsely implicated in this case and also he was not aware about the alleged transaction. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner was examined during the Section 81 enquiry. In the said enquiry, it was revealed that through one Elumalai, he became acquainted with one Ramadoss, and through Ramadoss, he came to know one Sathish Kumar. It is further stated that the petitioner had also subscribed to various documents for the purpose of obtaining loan. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking note of the submission made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), since the petitioner has categorically admit that he has also executed loan application and pledged jewels, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail at this stage will affect further investigation in this case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25.09.2025 ssi K.RAJASEKAR , J.

ssi 3/4

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The Inspector of Police, EOW Tiruvannamalai Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

Crl.O.P.No.26388 of 2025 25.09.2025 4/4