Pradeep Babu Ramachandran v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 09.01.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Pradeep Babu Ramachandran ... Petitioner/Accused Vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.By, the Inspector of Police, CCD-III District Cyber Crime, Tirunelveli.

(Crime No.5 of 2025) ... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anandakumar Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.

r 1/5

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 205, 336(3), 338, 318(4) of BNS Act 2023 and under Sections 66D of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008 INF C, in Crime No.5 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused persons, was involved in fraudulent activities in the online network with their associates at Mumbai and cheated the defacto complainant of about of Rs.68,20,000/- through online transactions. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offences as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that based on the confession of co-accused, the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions which may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/5

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the petitioner along with other accused persons, had cheated the defacto complainant of about Rs.68,20,000/- through online. He further submitted that the co-accused had already been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. He further submitted that based on the confession of the arrested accused, the petitioner was implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner and his wife have been the brains behind the scam, and that there is a nexus between them and the associates in Mumbai. He further submitted that if the petitioner is released on anticipatory bail, he abscond and the investigation is at an initial stage. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. On a perusal of the First Information Report, it prima facie discloses an online fraud involving a sum of approximately Rs. 68,20,000/-. Considering the overall circumstances of the case, the active role allegedly played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence, and the fact that the investigation is at initial stage, this Court is of the view that there is a likelihood of the petitioner absconding if released on 3/5

anticipatory bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. (S S Y J) 09.01.2026 CP To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No-I, Tirunelveli.

2. The Inspector of Police, CCD-III District Cyber Crime, Tirunelveli.

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

4/5

S.SRIMATHY,J CP

ORDER

IN 09.01.2025 5/5