Pardeep Babu Ramachandran v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccd - Iii

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date :24.06.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Pradeep Babu Ramachandran

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, CCD-III District Cyber Crime Tirunelveli (Crime No. 05 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Anandakumar For Respondent : Mr.N.Balasubrmanian Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 205,366(3), 338 , 318(4) of BNS and Section 66D of Information Technology (Amendment ) Act, 2008 INF C in Crime No. 05 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with others involved in fraudulent activities in the online network with their associates in Mumbai and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.68,20,000/- the money. 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the petitioner along with others involved in fraudulent activities in the 2/5

online network with their associates in Mumbai and cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.68,20,000/- and the amount involved in this case is huge. He would further submit that already Look Out Circular notice was issued as against the petitioner and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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 huge amount involved in this case and the investigation is not yet completed and also the fact that already Look Out Circular was issued as against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner at this stage.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 24.06.2026 aav 3/5

To

1. The Inspector of Police, CCD-III District Cyber Crime Tirunelveli 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

4/5

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.8867 of 2026 Date :24.06.2026 5/5