Prakash Selvam v. State Represented By The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.28757 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.22835 of 2025 Prakash Selvam ... Petitioner Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore.
... Respondent (Crime No.552 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 pending investigation in Crime No.552 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravikumar For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Sri.A.Shridhar Murthy
O R D E R
The petitioner apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 296(b) of BNSS Act, 2023 and Section 4 of TNPHW Act in Crime No.552 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/4
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner moved closely with the defacto complainant, promised to marry her and also maintained a close relationship, thereby collected a huge amount from her. When she demanded marriage, he threatened her with dire consequences and also swindled a huge amount of Rs.65 lakhs. Hence, a complaint has been lodged and the petitioner has come forward with the petition for anticipatory bail.
3. This Court before hearing the parties, after considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, had directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer and submit a statement and other connected occurrences. He also appeared before the Investigating Officer and stated that the petitioner is still to be paid Rs.21 lakhs to the defacto complainant.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.21 lakhs to the defacto complainant, however, it pertains only to a chit fund transaction, and that the payment will be made exclusively in monthly installments. He also contended that another case filed by the petitioner involves collusion with the parties. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that though the 2/4
complaint initially claimed to have an account statement showing Rs.65 lakhs, later, when documents were filed with the Investigaing Officer, verification of records revealed that the petitioner had reeived payments exceeding one crore, which were also handed over. He further stated that some valuable articles were additionally handed over and, apart from this case, the petitioner is habitually involved in similar offences and has filed another case registered as Crime No.47 of 2025, on the file of the All Women police Station, Central, Coimbatore City. He also submitted that another complaint was lodged by Miss.Gayathri, investigated by the Chettipalayam Police Station in C.S.R.No.159 of 2025. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent/State reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that, as per direction, the petitioner herein appeared before the respondent police, and the investigation revealed that the petitioner had paid nearly Rs.21 lakhs. It is also stated that the petitioner has several bad antecedents of similar in nature. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
ssi 3/4
7. I have also gone through the records and other connected materials. The investigation shows that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in similar offences. The defacto complainant was a lady, petitioner approached her claiming himself that he is having contacts with various persons, promised to assist her and exploited her by entering into a sexual relationship and cheating her after collecting a huge amount. Since, his modus operandi has been reported in other cases also, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, he would indulge in similar offences. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition stands ordered. Interim protection already granted by this Court, vide order dated 27.11.2025, shall stand cancelled.
11.12.2025 ssi To:
1.The Inspector of Police, Kattur Police Station, Coimbatore. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. Crl.O.P.No.28757 of 2025 4/4