M.Narayanan v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28-10-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR AND CRL MP NO. 19630 OF 2025 M.Narayanan Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police Chennai. In T14, Pallikaranai Police Station, (Cr. No.315 of 2025) Respondent(s) 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.315 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

For Intervenor Mr.G.R.Aravind Mr.K.Raghuraman For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends the arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(2), 351(2) of BNS, in Crime No.315 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner and his wife, Priyanka, are running a business called "Kuberan Enterprises" and they approached the defacto complainant, stating that there was a possibility of higher returns if he helped them and invest more money and co-operate in their business transactions. Accordingly, the defacto complainant handed over his credit card, and the petitioner withdrew amounts on various dates, receiving a total sum of Rs.50,60,000/- from the defacto complainant and also cheating two other persons. Hence, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has already repaid Rs.30 lakhs through account payments and an addition Rs.14 lakhs via online payment. Further, accused A2 and A3, who were arrested, were released on bail and had paid Rs.5 lakhs and Rs.2 lakhs respectively at the time of obtaining bail. He further submitted that the balance amount is only Rs.14 lakhs and that he is ready to deposit some amount to demonstrate his good faith. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that, although the petitioner claims to have paid some amount, those amounts were withdrawn and transferred to the petitioner's own account, and no payment has been made by him. The total amount involved in this case is Rs.50,60,000/- lakhs and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent reported that, although it is stated that the total amount involved in this Case is Rs.50,60,000/- and so far no amount is repaid or received in this case. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.Considering the fact that huge amount has been taken by the petitioner by promising good profits to the defacto complainant and two others, I am of the view that granting anticipatory bail would not facilitate recovery of the money and hamper investigation, therefore, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 28-10-2025 1/2 gbi

To 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police Chennai. In T14, Pallikaranai Police Station, (Cr. No.315 of 2025) 2.The Public prosecutor High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 27946 of AND CRL MP NO.

19630 OF 2025 28-10-2025