S. Ravi v. The State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 20.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.31652 of 2025

1. S.Ravi

2. K.Sankar ... Petitioners Vs.

The State rep by , The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Thiruvannamalai, CBCID North, ... Respondent (Cr.No.3of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners/ 1 st and 2 nd accused on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.3 of 2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

1/6

For Petitioners : Mr.G.Prabhakaran For Respondent : Mrs.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section 120B, 294(b), 420 and 506(1) of IPC in Cr.No.3 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners were doing several business and induced the defacto complainant to part with money for the purpose of converting the money to be collected by way of sale of claim to be a special material. Accordingly, collected a sum of Rs.1.99 crores on various dates. However, subsequently revealed that the petitioner have cheated the defacto complainant. Subsequently, the case has been registered 2/6

against the petitioner. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that originally business transaction taken place between the defacto complainant and the petitioners herein is only a Real Estate Business and the petitioners also have invested the huge amount in the Real Estate Business; however, the accounts have not been scrutinized and they have not able to derive any profits. Hence, a false complaint has been registered. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the total amount involved in this case is Rs.1.99crores and this petitioners have collected huge amount not only by stating that they will make profit in the Real Estate Business and also in the another business called Iridium conversion and investigation is pending and FIR was registered recently. 3/6

Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have also gone through the FIR, revealed that all these allegations taken place in the year 2022-2023 and in the year 2023 itself the petitions are blocked their phone numbers and the complaint is lodged after two years. Further, the FIR also speaks about the various transactions taken between the petitioners and the defacto complainant herein, I am of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary and hence I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions :

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvannamalai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: 4/6

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

(b) The sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the application for surety ship (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity; (c) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of four weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on 5/6

anticipatory bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; (e)If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

20.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate Court-I, Thiruvannamalai

2. The Inspector of Police, CBCID Police Station, Thiruvannamalai, CBCID North, 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

6/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.31652 of 2025 7/6

20.11.2025 8/6