Sheik Abdullah v. State Of Tamilnadu, Rep By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Sheik Abdullah

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station Dindigul District (Crime No. 41 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Yasar Arafath For Respondent : Mr.P.Kottaichamy Government Advocate(Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS in Crime No. 41 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that unknown person had contact the defacto complainant and stated that he had been placed under Digital arest and that he if had not committed any offence he must transfer the money from his bank account to the bank accounts provided by them for verification of genuineness of the funds. He assured that after verification the money would be returned within 24 hrs. Believing the words the complainant had transferred a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- in three bank accounts and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and no previous case is pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner had cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs. 50,00,000/- in three bank accounts. He would further submit that there are some money transactions in the account of the petitioner and the investigation is pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

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

6. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the gravity of offence and also the fact that the investigation is not yet completed and there are some transactions in the account of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 09.04.2026 aav 3/5

To 1.The Inspector of Police, Cyber Crime Police Station Dindigul District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.1669 of 2026 Date : 09.04.2026 5/5