N.Vijaya Bhaskar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 12.11.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY CRL OP(MD)No.2536 of 2025 N.Vijaya Bhaskar ... Petitioner/ Accused No.1 Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai District.

(Crime No.51 of 2024) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukumar For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Manoj Government Advocate (Crl. side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.51 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police.

1/4

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of TNPID Act, 1997, in Crime No.51 of 2024, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and her husband invested Rs.23,22,500/- in the accused's share-trading companies on the recommendation of the accused's son. They received dividends of Rs.1,77,500/- between 01.06.2022 and 01.10.2022, but after 01.12.2022, the payments stopped. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the accused gave excuses and later, in 2023, shut down the company and disappeared. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that the defacto complainant and her husband invested Rs.23,22,500/- in the accused's share-trading companies on the recommendation of the accused's son. They received dividends of Rs.1,77,500/- between 01.06.2022 and 01.10.2022, but after 01.12.2022, the payments stopped. When the defacto complainant questioned the same, the accused gave excuses and later, in 2023, shut down the company and disappeared

5. This Court had earlier granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner with a direction to cooperate with the investigation and to file an affidavit disclosing the properties in his possession. However, the petitioner has failed to comply with this direction. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner and the interim order already granted stands vacated.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. (S S Y J) 12.11.2025 jbr 3/4

S.SRIMATHY,J.

jbr To

1. The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Madurai District.

2. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.2536 of 2025 Date : 12.11.2025 4/4