Santhosh @ K.Santhosh Kumar, Vs The State by The Inspector of Police

PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.125 of 2024 or on his appearance before the Court .

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.M Purushothaman

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Udhayakumar Government Advocate Crl.side

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

police for the offence under Sections 408, 420, 477(A) and 120(B) of IPC, in

¶18

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

¶19

CRL OP No. 22437 of 2025

¶20

Crime No.125 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory

¶21

bail.

¶22

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that he is ranked as A2 and,

¶23

together with four other accused involved in misappropriation and siphoned

¶24

Rs.1.5 Crore from the defacto complainant's company.

¶25

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner

¶26

worked as a collection agent in the defacto's company and acted only on the instructions of A1 the person in charge of the company. He further submitted that the amount transferred to the petitioner's (A2) account was subsequently

¶27

returned to A1's account. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶28

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) reported that a total of Rs.1.5 Crore was transferred to the petitioner's account and that he actively participated in the misappropriation together with A1. He further submitted that

¶29

A1 had already been granted anticipatory bail by the lower Court in Crl Mp

¶30

No.1708 of 2025.

¶31

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

¶32

CRL OP No. 22437 of 2025

¶33

5.I have also gone through the order passed by the lower Court. It is striking that the petitioner therein who is ranked as A1, has been shown as having received only Rs.6,50,000/- and is described as working under the defacto complainant's company. Consequently, the lower Court granted anticipatory bail to A1. I am of the view that this order does not apply to the present petitioner because it was obtained by suppressing facts.

¶34

6.Considering the allegation that a huge amount of Rs.1.5 Crore has been

¶35

transacted into this petitioner's account and that there appears to be collusion between A1 and A2 so far no money is recovered, if bail is granted it would

¶36

hamper investigation, hence, I am not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶37

7.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.

¶38

24-10-2025

¶39

gbi

¶40

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

¶41

CRL OP No. 22437 of 2025