Mohammed Rafeek v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 11.11.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Mohammed Rafeek ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai.

(Crime No.68 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.68 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :

Mr.G.Ponnumani ********** 1/4

ORDER

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 30.09.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.68 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, under the pretext of getting a job at the UK for the de facto complainant, collected a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs and thereafter has not fulfilled the promise, hence a complaint has been lodged.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had no intention to cheat the de facto complainant and since he has made genuine efforts to pay the money to one Pravin Nayak for the purpose of getting the documentation. However, the petitioner was cheated, and the money was also been paid to Pravin Nayak. It is further submitted that there is no offence of forgery or falsification of records is made out against the petitioner. Hence, prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2/4

4. The Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the petitioner has handed over a fake sponsorship certificate, and it was found to be a fake, and the de facto complainant was also banned from getting into the UK. The total amount cheated is Rs. 17 lakhs. Hence, opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has collected a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs from the de facto complainant and also handed over a fabricated sponsorship certificate, thereby committing forgery and cheating, and so far no amount has been recovered, if the petitioner is granted bail, it would hamper the investigation. Hence, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed. 11.11.2025 mpa To 1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

3/4

mpa 11.11.2025 4/4