Surendra Singh@ Surender Singh v. State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05-12-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Surendra singh @ Surender Singh Petitioner(s) Vs State represented by The Inspector of Police, Crime Department, C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai- 600 079. (Crime No.

228/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused herein on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 228 of 2025 on the file of C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai, Respondent Police. For Petitioner :

Mr.Sanjay J Rajpurohit For Respondent:

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 409 & 420 of IPC/Sections 316 and 318 of BNS 2023, in Crime No.228 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A1 in this case and he joined hands with A2 and A3 and collected huge quantity of gold jewels under the pretext of doing business. Accordingly, totally collected 574.4 grams of 24 carrot gold at various occasions and subsequently they siphoned off by purchasing the various properties instead of returning back the money for the value of the gold purchased. Further it is alleged that when the defacto complainant approached A3 for return back the gold jewels, but A3 replied that he has not collected gold from the defacto complainant and he has to approach only A1 and A2. Hence the defacto complainant has come forward with the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the employee under A3 and he has not collected any gold jewels and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. He further submitted that already A2 and A3 were released on bail. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police submitted that though originally A3 has approached the defacto complainant to part away with his gold for the purpose of doing business and to earn income, and later, with a view to siphoning of the money, he introduced A2 and A3 who

are the brothers of A3 and slowly gained trust of the defacto complainant and collected huge gold and subsequently cheated the defacto complainant. 5.Considering the fact that the petitioner herein who is cited as A1 and he is the one who collected gold directly from the defacto complainant, though it is stated that A2 and A3 were already released on bail since no money has been recovered and it is also stated that the petitioner is in possession of the properties, granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner will hamper the investigation, hence I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6.

Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 05-12-2025 GBI Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State represented by The Inspector of Police, Crime Department, C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station, Chennai- 600 079. (Crime No.

228/2025) 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 33309 of 05-12-2025