Jayaprakash v. State Rep.By, The Sub Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.34570 of 2025 1.Jayaprakash 2.Dharshini ... Petitioners

Versus

State rep by its, The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Erode.

(Crime No.6 of 2025) .. Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner :

M/s.Gowri For Respondent :

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

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC, in Crime No.6 of 2025 registered on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they joined hands with other accused involved in collection of Rs.30.6 lakhs under the pretext of 1/5

getting a government employment to the defacto complainant and thereafter they neither get the job nor return back the money. Hence, a case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the majority of the allegation is against A1 and the petitioners are only introduced A1 and they are not collected any money. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners are arrayed as A2 and A3 in the case. She further submitted that the petitioners had also collected money from the defacto complainant, in which the first petitioner collected a sum of Rs.3.20 lakhs and the second petitioner collected a sum of Rs.2 lakhs. She further submitted that both the petitioners actively participated in the collection of money and that they are husband and wife. Hence, she opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. On perusal of the FIR and the other connected materials, it is revealed that the petitioners, in collusion with A1, had collected a total sum of Rs.5,20,000/- from the defacto complainant and that the total amount 2/5

involved in the case is Rs.30.6 lakhs. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners..

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 02.01.2026 drl To

1. The Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Erode 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

3/5

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl CRL.O.P.No.34570 of 2025 4/5

02.01.2026 5/5