Dismissed¶31

K. R. Kumar v. State rep by The Inspector of Police

Anticipatory bail – Section 482 BNSS

Madras HC23 Mar 2026/20302/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 20302 of 2025, decided 23-03-2026 by C. Kumarappan J. Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS sought by K. R. Kumar and K. Jagadesh in Crime No.1 of 2025 (EOW Thiruvallur) for offences under Sections 120B, 409, 408, 468, 471, 477A, 420 r/w 34 IPC; alleged misappropriation of Rs.2,14,90,673/- from a co-operative credit society (31.03.2015 to 31.05.2023); 24 accused; custodial interrogation held necessary for recovery; anticipatory bail petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary to recover the misappropriated amount and identify the full extent of their wrongful act, given the amount of Rs.2,14,90,673/- and involvement of twenty-four accused; the application for anticipatory bail therefore has no merit. ¶30

K. R. Kumar Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 20302 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN CRL OP No. 20302 of 2025

¶6

K. R. Kumar 2. K. Jagadesh

¶7

..Petitioner(s)

¶8

¶9

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Economics Offences Wing (EOW) Thiruvallur, (Crime No. 1 of 2025)

¶10

..Respondent(s)

¶11

Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioners/accused herein on bail in the event of their arrest by the respondent or on their appearance before the concerned court in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

¶12

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Parthiban T For Respondent(s): Mr.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Section

¶15

120 B, 409, 408, 468, 471, 477A, 420 r/w 34 of I.P.C., in Crime No.1 of 2025

¶16

on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners joining hands with

¶18

other accused, criminally misappropriated funds belonging to the defactocomplainant / Co-operative credit society to the tune of Rs.2,14,90,673/- during

¶19

Page1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

CRL OP No. 20302 of 2025

¶22

the period from 31.03.2015 to 31.05.2023 by creating false documents, falsifying accounts and thereby cheated the society. The specific allegation against these petitioners is that they received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the society without possessing valid grain guarantor mortgage documents. Hence, the complaint.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that, in pursuance of the order passed by this Court on 27.10.2025 directing these petitioners to deposit Rs.10,00,000/-, they were able to deposit only Rs.4,00,000/-. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that they are ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

¶24

4.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that there are about twenty-four accused involved in this case and are alleged to have misappropriated Rs.2,14,90,673. He further submitted that the occurrences took place between 31.03.2015 to 31.05.2023, during which the petitioners allegedly created false documents and falsified accounts. Specifically, he contended that custodial interrogation of the

¶25

Page2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

CRL OP No. 20302 of 2025

¶28

petitioners is necessary at this juncture. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

¶29

5.Considering the submissions made by the learned Government

¶30

Advocate (Criminal side), the amount misappropriated is Rs.2,14,90,673/- and twenty-four persons are involved in this case. The submission of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) that the custody is very much necessary to recover the amount misappropriated and identify the full extent of the petitioner’s wrongful act cannot be faulted. Therefore, this Court finds no merit

¶31

in this application. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed.

23-03-2026

(2/3)

1.The Inspector of Police, Economics Offences Wing (EOW) Thiruvallur,

¶37

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.