Dismissed¶31

C.Balakrishnan v. the State Rep by

Madras HC3 Dec 2025CRL OP/33129/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application dismissed; cheating case (IPC Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471, 420) with Emblems and Names Prevention of Improper Use Act 1950 Sections 3 & 5; accused posed as RBI official promising conversion of foreign funds; defacto complainant paid Rs.31.81 lakhs; confession statement showed active participation and sharing of Rs.18 lakhs with A1; parity plea based on co-accused A2's bail in Crl.OP No.32879 of 2025 (02.12.2025) did not succeed; petitioner in custody since 08.11.2025; CBCID Krishnagiri; single judge (K. Rajasekar, J.); decided 03-12-2025.

What did the court decide?

Though it is stated that the petitioner was merely present at the time of payment, the confession statement of the arrested accused reveals that the petitioner actively participated in the occurrence. ¶27

C.Balakrishnan Vs the State Rep by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

CRL OP No. 33129 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03-12-2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP No. 33129 of 2025

C.Balakrishnan

Petitioner(s)

The State Rep By The Inspector of Police, CBCID, Krishnagiri (Crime No 2 of 2025)

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in Crime no 2 of 2025 on the file of Respondent Police i.e. Inspector of Police, CBCID, Krishnagiri.

¶13

For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Saravanakumar

¶14

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶15

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

¶16

CRL OP No. 33129 of 2025

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on

¶19

08.11.2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 465, 468, 471,

¶20

420 of IPC, Section 3 & 5 of Emblems and Names Prevention of Improper Use Act 1950, in Crime No.2 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶21

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that one Balaji/A1, introduced the petitioner/A3 as the official of the RBI and believing the same, the defacto complainant proposed to invest the amount to the tune of 31.81 lakhs and the said amount was collected by A1, petitioner/A3 along with other accused stating that they are having foreign funds in RBI and for transferring the same, they need money for documentation charges and if he give one lakh, they will return it as 5 crores. Believing the words of the accused, the defacto complainant gave amounts totaling to the tune of Rs.31.81 lakhs on various dates. When the defacto complainant, demanded money, A1 gave promissory notes and assured him to return his money. Thereafter, they failed to return the money. This petitioner acted in consonance with the intention to cheat the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.

¶22

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 08.11.2025 and the co-accused/A2 has already been

¶23

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

¶24

CRL OP No. 33129 of 2025

¶25

granted bail by this Court on 02.12.2025 in Crl.OP No.32879 of 2025. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he was present at the time of making payment by the defacto complainant and there is no other allegations levelled and it is also stated that the alleged occurrence has also taken place several years ago. Hence, he prayed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶26

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent reported that the petitioner joining hands with A1 who is the main accused in this case induced the defacto complainant to deposit money under the pretext of getting the funds through RBI and accordingly, the defacto complainant has paid amounts on various dates. This petitioner has also participated in the occurrence by showing this petitioner as an official of RBI, the amounts were collected and apart from that totally Rs.18 lakhs was collected and shared among the petitioner and A3. Hence, he opposed for the grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶27

5.Considering the fact that it is the case of cheating inducing the defacto complainant to part with the money under the pretext of getting the foreign investments and to share the same, though it is stated that the petitioner is present at the time of payment, the confession statement of the arrested accused, reveals that the petitioner has also actively participated in the occurrence and he

¶28

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

¶29

CRL OP No. 33129 of 2025

¶30

has also shared Rs.18 lakhs with A1. In view of the same, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

¶31

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶32

03-12-2025

¶33

gbi