Dismissed¶27

Nithya Rajendran v. State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

Anticipatory bail – S.482 BNSS

Madras HC9 Oct 2025CRL OP/20731/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge Madras High Court order dismissing an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 482 BNSS by Nithya Rajendran, Director (A2 of nine accused) of a company alleged to have committed investment fraud in Crime No.264 of 2023 of CCB-1, Chennai (offences under Sections 120(B), 34, 406 and 420 IPC; Rs.1.12 crores collected from 43 victims). Bail was refused because a huge amount was cheated, the petitioner is the company's Director, and nothing has been recovered; the intervenor's counsel opposed bail. No precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Grounds for refusing anticipatory bail: a huge amount has been cheated by the accused company, the petitioner is the Director of that company, and so far no amount has been recovered. ¶25

Nithya Rajendran Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No.20731 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.20731 of 2025

¶7

Nithya Rajendran ... Petitioner Vs. State Rep by The Inspector of Police CCB-1 Chennai ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.264 of 2023 on the file of the Inspector of Police,CCB-1,Chennai

¶9

For Petitioners : M/s.K.M.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.K.Sudhakar O R D E R

¶10

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent

¶11

police for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 34, 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No. 264 of 2023, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶12

1/4

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

Crl.OP.No.20731 of 2025

¶15

2.The allegation against this petitioner is that the petitioner is the Director of the company which involved in investment fraud and totally a sum of Rs.1.12 crores was collected from 43 victims and subsequently, they have cheated the depositors. Hence, the case.

¶16

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case. He also submits that the petitioner is one of the Director and all the business transactions were carried out by other accused persons. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for her release.

¶17

Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶18

The learned counsel for the Intervenor submits that huge amount has been swindled by inducing the defacto complainant and other depositors to invest in the accused company and subsequently, they were cheated by the accused persons. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶19

2/4

¶20

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶21

Crl.OP.No.20731 of 2025

¶22

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the

¶23

respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that totally there are nine accused in this case and the petitioner/A2, who is the Director of the company, actively participated in the business activities. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the

¶25

allegations against the petitioners, submissions made by the learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that huge amount has been cheated by the accused company and the petitioner is the Director of the company and also the fact that so far, no amount has been recovered, this

¶26

Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶27