Ragavendra Gupta v. State Rep By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.27773 of 2025 Ragavendra Gupta ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by its:- Inspector of Police, DCB Krishnagiri Police Station, Krishnagiri District.
(Crime No.17 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on bail in Crime No.17 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.P.Saravanan For Intervenor : Mr.J.Pradeep For Respondent :
Mr.Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
O R D E R
The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506(2), in Crime No.17 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/4
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused, taking advantage of professional acquaintance, borrowed Rs.34,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and threatened the complainant with dire consequences. Hence the case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complaint is false and baseless. It is further contended that the accused has been unnecessarily implicated and there was no money transaction as alleged. The cheque mentioned in the complaint was never issued by the second accused. It is also submitted that the complainant, with mala fide intention, has falsely created documents and converted a civil dispute into a criminal case. Hence, he prayed for anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor would submit that the accused are influential persons having muscle power and political support, and they are capable of threatening witnesses, tampering with evidence, and obstructing the fair investigation. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner and other accused are habitual offender involved in several cheating cases across different police stations. It is reported that more than 2/4
fifteen complaints are pending against them involving total cheating amounts exceeding Rs.15 crores. It is contended that custodial interrogation is absolutely necessary to trace the money flow, verify the fake documents, and identify other victims. If anticipatory bail is granted, it would seriously prejudice the investigation. However, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has adopted the same method and collected money from various persons including the defacto complainant, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 13.10.2025 kmm To 1.The Inspector of Police, Madukkarai Police Station, Coimbatore District.
2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
3/4
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
kmm Crl.O.P.No.27773 of 2025 13.10.2025 4/4