Sahani v. The Inspector Of Police
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Reserved on : 14.08.2025 Pronounced on : 15.09.2025 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. VADAMALAI and CRL MP(MD). Nos.9385, 9373 & 9372 of 2025 1.Sahani, D/o.Sagayaraj 2.Sagayaraj, S/o.Melkiyas 3.Vengadesan, S/o.Selvaraj 4.Devi, W/o.Venkadesan 5.Ramesh, S/o.Melkiyas 6.Jaqulin Mary, W/o.Sagayaraj ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.11509 of 2025/ A1 to A4, A7 & A8 1.Jeya Pratha, D/o.Venkadesan 1/8
2.Manikandan, S/o.Venkadesan ... Petitioners in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.11510 of 2025/ A5 & A6 Sivakumar Yathav @ Sivakumar, S/o.Nagappan ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.11511 of 2025/A9 Vs The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.20 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant in all petitions For Petitioners : Mr.KA.Raamakrishnan, (in all petitions) Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.Prakash, (in all petitions) Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.M.Sheik Abdullah, (in all petitions) Advocate PETITIONS FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS COMMON PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
2/8
COMMON ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioners/A1 to A9, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318 and 336 of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.20 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused, an employee of an IT company in Chennai, informed the de-facto complainant that she could help to secure a job abroad and requested the defacto complainant to lend money for her ITrelated project. They had also agreed to share the profits from the project upon its success. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant lent a sum of Rs.1,00,68,000/- to the 1st accused between 05.10.2023 and 22.02.2025, through the bank accounts of the 2nd to 8th accused. However, when 3/8
the de-facto complainant demanded repayment, the 1st accused refused. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that the present false complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant only after the 1st accused filed a suit in O.S.No.264 of 2025 before the learned Principal District Judge, Nagercoil, seeking recovery of money. He further submitted that the matter is purely civil in nature, as the transactions between the 1st accused and the defacto complainant were routine dealings between two families. He, however, submitted that the petitioners are ready and willing to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4/8
4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the accused persons cheated the de-facto complainant by making a false promise of securing a job abroad, collected a sum of Rs.1,68,02,764/-, and provided a fake visa and a fake employment offer letter. He further submitted that if the accused are released on anticipatory bail, they are likely to tamper the evidence and threaten the de-facto complainant. He also contended that since a huge sum of money is involved, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is very much necessary. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that there are totally nine accused in this case. He submitted that this is a 5/8
case of job racketing, wherein the accused, under the false pretext of providing employment abroad, cheated the de-facto complainant and received a total sum of Rs.1,68,02,764/- into their respective bank accounts. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is still at preliminary stage. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, and also taking note of the fact that this is a case of job racketing, and that a huge amount is involved in this case, and that the investigation in this case is still at preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners at this stage.
6/8
7. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
(P V M J) 15.09.2025 mkn 7/8
P. VADAMALAI,J mkn TO 1.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Kanyakumari, Kanyakumari District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Pre-Delivery order made IN CRL OP(MD). Nos.11509, 11510 & 11511 of 2025 and CRL MP(MD). Nos.9385, 9373 & 9372 of 2025 Date : 15/09/2025 8/8