Philominal Mary v. The State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

1. Philominal Mary

2. Saravanakumar Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep.by The Inspector of Police Koothanallur Police Station, Tiruvarur District Crime No.296 of 2025 Respondent(s) PRAYER This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the Petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No. 296 of 2025 on the file of respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.Kalimuthu For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana, GA (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 296(B), 351(2) of BNS Act in Crime No.296 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the defacto complainant, a B.Pharm graduate was searching for job in abroad through websites and he came across 'Senthil andavar Abroad Job Consultancy' on Facebook and contacted the petitioners who were the agents of aforementioned consultancy and paid a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- for his employment in foreign country. However, the petitioners neither arranged the job nor refunded the money and cheated the defacto complianant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that petitioners are also victims of the alleged fraud and are willing to cooperate with the investigation. The learned counsel prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution's case and on instructions submitted that these petitioners received the entire amount of Rs.6.5 laksh from the defacto complainant, the investigation in this case is still pending and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard both sides and perused the records including the FIR.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have received the entire amount, no money is repaid or recovered, hence granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners would likely hamper the investigation, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-01-2026 Jai To 1.The Inspector of Police Koothanallur Police Station, Tiruvarur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

jai CRL OP No. 36024 of 09-01-2026