Dismissed¶41

Naveenkumar v. State by The Inspector of Police

Madras HC15 Apr 2025CRL OP/2463/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail refused; petition dismissed. Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025, Madras High Court, Justice Sunder Mohan, pronounced 15.04.2025. Section 482 BNSS 2023; Crime No.10 of 2024, E.O.W. Chennai; Sections 409, 420, 34, 120(b) IPC; Section 5 TNPID Act 1997; M/s.V4V Enterprises investment scheme; gold purchased in Cameroon sold at Dubai; Rs.8 Crores cheated from 500 investors; petitioner fled abroad, look out circular issued; co-accused arrested and released on bail; custodial interrogation held required; intervenor/defacto complainant Ramani; Crl.M.P.No.5595 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Considering the nature of the allegations against the petitioner and the investigation conducted so far, this Court cannot at this stage hold that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. ¶41

Naveenkumar Vs State by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest in Crime No.10 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, should be enlarged on anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

This Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner; the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — dismissed. Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Madras (SUNDER MOHAN, J.; reserved 02.04.2025, pronounced 15.04.2025): petition under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the petitioner/A2 (Naveen Kumar) seeking anticipatory bail in Crime No.10 of 2024 of the Inspector of Police, E.O.W., Chennai, registered for offences under Sections 409, 420, 34 and 120(b) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997. Prosecution case: the petitioner and other accused induced the defacto complainant and others to invest in M/s.V4V Enterprises on the promise of high returns through purchasing gold in Cameroon and selling it in Dubai, and thereafter did not pay the money due; the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that Rs.8 Crores was cheated from 500 investors, that the petitioner played a major role, fled the country after registration of the case and returned only after a look out circular was issued. The petitioner's counsel contended he went to Cameroon for business, had appeared regularly per earlier directions of this Court after the look out circular, and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the co-accused were arrested and released on bail. The counter affidavit revealed the petitioner played an active role in the company and explained why his custodial interrogation was required. Holding that, considering the nature of the allegations and the investigation so far, it could not at that stage be said custodial interrogation was not required, the Court refused anticipatory bail and dismissed the petition. The defacto complainant (Ramani) had been permitted to intervene by order dated 15.04.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.5595 of 2025.

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

RESERVED ON : 02.04.2025

¶4

PRONOUNCED ON : 15.04.2025

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶7

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶8

Naveen Kumar ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

¶9

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, E.O.W., Chennai. [Cr.No.10 of 2024] ... Respondent/Complainant

¶10

Ramani … Intervenor/Defacto complainant

¶11

[Defacto complainant permitted to intervene, as per the orders of this Court [SMJ] dated 15.04.2025, made in Crl.M.P.No.5595 of 2025]

¶12

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police concerned in Crime No.10 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent : Mr.S.Santhosh Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.A.Nilesh Ram

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner/A2, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the

¶16

1/6

¶17

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

¶18

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶19

respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 34 and 120(b) of IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act, 1997 in Crime No.10

¶20

of 2024, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner along with the

¶22

other accused had induced the complainant and other persons to invest money in the company by name M/s.V4V Enterprises, on the promise of providing high returns; that the accused represented to the defacto complainant and others that they would earn money by purchasing gold from Cameroon and selling it at Dubai; and that thereafter, the accused did not pay the money due to the defacto complainant or to the other victims and thus, committed the aforesaid offences.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has gone to Cameroon for the purpose of business; that he has nothing to do with the alleged cheating committed by the members of the company; that since he came to know of the look out circular issued against him, he approached this Court and pursuant to the earlier directions of this Court, he had appeared before the respondent regularly;

¶24

2/6

¶25

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

¶26

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶27

that in any case, since the co-accused were arrested and released on bail,

¶28

3/6

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶31

the custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required and hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.

¶32

(i) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) however vehemently, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner along with others had cheated a sum of Rs.8 Crores from 500 investors; that the petitioner played a major role in the said company; that on coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioner fled from the country and only after a look out circular was issued, the petitioner has approached this Court and filed this anticipatory bail; and that the petitioner is also involved in the offence of cheating and only if he is interrogated in custody, the respondent would be able to unearth the truth.

¶33

(ii) The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) further submitted

¶34

that this petitioner fled to foreign country and also has cheated a few person in Cameroon.

¶35

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and

¶36

4/6

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶39

perused the available records.

¶40

The counter affidavit of the respondent reveals that the petitioner had played an active role in the company which had promised high returns to investors. The counter further states as to why the petitioner’s custodial interrogation is required. The other accused who are involved in the company were arrested and released on bail.

¶41

7. Considering the nature of the allegations against this petitioner and the investigation conducted by the petitioner so far, this Court cannot at this stage hold that the custodial interrogation is not required. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner and this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

15.04.2025

ars

5/6

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

¶46

Crl.O.P.No.2463 of 2025

¶47

SUNDER MOHAN., J.