Arunkanthan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Dcb

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 26.03.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Arunkanthan

...Petitioner

Vs State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station Virudhunagar District (Crime No. 15 of 2025 )

...Respondent

For Petitioners : Mr.S.Vishnu Vardhan For Respondent : Mr.B.Nambiselvan Additional Public Prosecutor PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No. 15 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

1/4

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 406 ,420, 465, 468, 471, 506(i) and 120(b) of IPC in Crime No. 15 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused persons based on false promise of assuring job received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and thereafter the accused persons issued fabricated appointment order as if the son of the defacto complainant has been appointed in a northern railway and instructed him to wait at Sasaram Railway Station in Bihar and thereafter neither arranged job nor returned 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.

2/4

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the it a case of job racketing. The petitioner herein along with other accused cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. 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 huge amount involved in this case and the investigation is not yet completed, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Hence the petition stands dismissed.

(P D B J) 26.03.2026 aav To 1.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station Virudhunagar District 2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

3/4

P. DHANABAL, J aav

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.22779 of 2025 Date : 26.03.2026 4/4