Dismissed¶25

Karanam Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar v. State Rep by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC5 Nov 2025CRL OP/21385/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras HC, Crl.O.P.No.21385 of 2025, 05.11.2025, K. Rajasekar J. Anticipatory bail refused/dismissed under S.482 BNSS; Crime No.22 of 2025, CCD Kallakurichi PS; offences S.318(4) BNS r/w 66(C), 66(D) IT Amendment Act 2008; alleged collection of Rs.62.32 lakhs from defacto complainant under pretext of online trading; petitioner claimed innocence and misuse of bank account; government advocate contended substantial amounts routed through petitioner's account.

What did the court decide?

This Court, considering the nature of the allegations and the materials available, was not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and accordingly dismissed the Criminal Original Petition. ¶22

Karanam Lakshmi Narayana Santosh Kumar Vs State Rep by The… — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 05.11.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR

¶5

Crl.O.P.No.21385 of 2025

¶6

Karanam Lakhsmi Narayana Santosh Kumar

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

¶9

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, CCD Kallakurichi Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya

¶12

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of the arrest pending investigation in Crime No.6 of 2025 on the

¶13

file of respondent police.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.SaravanaBhavan G

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶16

1/5

¶17

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

¶18

ORDER

¶19

The petitioner herein apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS r/w 66(C), 66(D) of IT Amendment Act, 2008 in Crime No.22 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. The allegation against the petitioner is that he, along with other accused, had collected a sum of Rs.62.32 lakhs from the defacto complainant under the pretext of online trading. Hence, the complaint.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶21

is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated, and that his bank account was misused. The learned Government Advocate opposed the same stating that substantial amounts were routed through the petitioner’s account.

¶22