Allowed

Nithya Rajendran v. Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Dec 2025CRL OP/34034/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail sought in a cheating and criminal breach of trust case alleging collection of Rs.1.12 crores as investments and siphoning of funds. The attached property was offered for sale with the petitioner's no objection. Bail was granted on conditions including daily police reporting.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on bond of Rs.20,000 with two sureties, subject to surrender within 15 days and daily police reporting for three weeks.

Nithya Rajendran Vs Inspector of Police — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 18.12.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR

¶6

CRL OP NO. 34034 of 2025

¶7

Nithya Rajendran Petitioner Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai Crime No. 264 of 2023. ...Respondent

¶8

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 264 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Balasubramaniam For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

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

¶12

police for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 34, 406 and 420 IPC in Crime No. 264 of 2023 on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶13

1/6

¶14

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

¶15

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025 2 . The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner, as the

¶16

Managing Director of A1 Company, collected Rs.1.12 Crores as investment from the de-facto complainant and several depositors and subsequently, siphoned off the money and thereby, cheated the de-facto complainant. Hence the complaint.

¶17

3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner who is ranked as A2 in this case has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that already some of the co-accused were arrested and released on bail. He further submits that the property in Survey No. 5/3A1A situated at No. 16, Attrambakkam Village, Uthukottai Taluk measuring an extent of 50693 sqft/24 grounds worth about is nearly for more than 1.5 Crore is already attached. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. He prays to grant anticipatory bail the petitioner.

¶18

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the property has been attached. He further submits that investigation is pending and so far no amount has been recovered and he opposed for grant of

¶19

2/6

¶20

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

¶21

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025

¶22

anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶23

5.I have also gone through the FIR and other connected materials. Though this Court earlier dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.20731 of 2025, dated 09.10.2025, now, the petitioner come with an affidavit stating that “No Objection” for selling the property belonging to the petitioner as described in the earlier paragraph.

¶24

6.Considering the above facts, the property has been attached and the petitioner has “No Objection” to sell and to recover the money, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

¶25

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Special Court for CCB & CB CID Court, Egmore, Chennai, o n condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 2 0,000/- (Rupees T wenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

¶26

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the

¶27

3/6

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025 concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

¶30

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

¶31

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;’

¶32

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [ (2005)13 SCC 283 ];

¶33

4/6

¶34

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

¶35

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025

¶36

¶37

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR

¶38

can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

18.12.2025

MSM

1.The Special Court for CCB & CB CID Court, Egmore, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch-I, Chennai

¶43

Crime No. 264 of 2023.

¶44

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

¶45

5/6

¶46

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

¶47

Crl.OP.No. 34034 of 2025

¶48

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

¶49

MSM

¶50

CRL OP NO. 34034 of 2025

¶51

18.12.2025.

¶52

6/6

¶53

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

Nithya Rajendran v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nithya Rajendran v. Inspector of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakthivel Vs State Rep.by Inspector of Police

Sai Srinivasan, Vs The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police

Chakkaravarthi Vs The state rep.by, The Inspector of Police

Kumar Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

K.Basha Vs State Rep by

Akash Vs The State rep.by, Inspector of Police