Marimuthu P Vs State Rep. by The Inspector of Police

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Cr.No.4 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, pending investigation.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Sabarirama K.S. For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

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

¶13

police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 465, 468, 471, 420 IPC and Section 3 r/w 5 of Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 in Crime No.4 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶14

1/4

¶15

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

¶16

Clr.O.P.No. 31881 of 2025

¶17

The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused promised the de-facto complainant that they have iridium and collected a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- from him and to sell the same and subsequently, cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence, the complaint has been registered.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein was earlier arrested in connection with another case and remanded to judicial custody, and the respondent police did not choose to arrest him in this case, and he was later released on bail after the mandatory period. He further submitted that he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶19

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and reported that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.5,95,000/- from the de-facto complainant under the pretext of selling the iridium and subsequently, cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶20

2/4

¶21

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

¶22

Clr.O.P.No. 31881 of 2025

¶23

Considering the fact that the petitioner has fraudulently obtained a

¶24

huge sum of Rs.5,95,000/- from the de-facto complainant, and also considering the manner in which the de-facto complainant has been cheated. Though it is stated that the petitioner has been arrested in connection with other cases, it is totally different case, and so far no amount has been recovered and also the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶25