A.Prabu v. State Represented 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 A.Prabu ... Petitioner -vsState Rep by, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

(Crime No.9 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime No.9 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Baskar 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 06.10.2025, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w. 34 of IPC in Crime No.9 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner/A1 is that, while working as a computer operator, he was given access to the bank transactions and, taking advantage of the absence of the defacto complainant, this petitioner transferred a huge amount of Rs. 50.61 lakhs in favour of A3 to A6, who are friends of A1/petitioner. A2 is also one of the staff and lover of A1, who was also working under the de facto complainant. After a long period, above facts came to light, and the case was registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 06.10.2025, and funds were transferred only with the consent of the de facto complainant. After the money was transferred to the other accused's account, it was withdrawn, and cash was handed over to A1. Due to a difference of opinion, this complaint has been lodged. Hence, prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

2/4

4. The learned counsel for the intervener stated the very same allegations stated in the FIR and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the submissions made on both sides and perusing the records, including the FIR, it is revealed that this petitioner joined hands with A2, and while they were working together clandestinely transferred amounts to A3 to A6's accounts under various dates and thereby misappropriated the funds. Though it is stated that only on the instigation of the de facto complainant the amounts were transferred to A3 to A6, there is no material produced before me to substantiate the same. Further, it is submitted that so far, no amount has been recovered, and the accused is absconding. 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, DCB Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/4

K. RAJASEKAR, J.

mpa 11.11.2025 4/4