Dismissed¶28

Murugan v. State By, The Inspector of Police

Anticipatory bail – S.482 BNSS

Madras HC9 Apr 2026CRL OP/8980/2026

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court, CRL OP No. 8980 of 2026, decided 09-04-2026 by C.Kumarappan J. - Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS refused in Crime No. 05 of 2024 (District Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District). Alleged cheating: Rs.9 lakhs collected from 19 persons (defence: Rs.3 lakhs from sister-in-law; State: more than Rs.90 lakhs by petitioner and other accused). Custodial interrogation held unnecessary (occurrence of 2024) but bail denied on the ground of serious nature of the offence; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

In view of the serious nature of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail, and the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. ¶28

Murugan Vs State By, The Inspector of Police — Anticipatory Bail | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

CRL OP No. 8980 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 09-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

CRL OP No. 8980 of 2026

¶7

Murugan S/o.Rama Moorthy, No.10, Kartupuattu, Devanampattu, Tiruvannamalai District. 606 802.

¶8

Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

State By, The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District, Crime No.05 of 2024

¶11

Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER

¶13

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of Arrest in Crime No. 05 of 2024, on the file of the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District and thus render justice.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Silambu Selvan

¶15

For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl Side)

¶16

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The allegation against the petitioner is that, he has collected a sum of Rs.9

¶19

lakhs from 19 persons. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶20

1/4

¶21

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

¶22

CRL OP No. 8980 of 2026

¶23

submit that he has collected a sum of Rs.3 lakhs, that too from his own sister-inlaw.

¶24

2.Apart from that, the occurrence took place in the year 2024. Therefore, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this case.

¶25

3.However, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would strongly oppose for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner, being a member of uniformed service, his conduct must be viewed seriously. At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would invite the attention of this Court that there are 19 victims involved in this case and the amount

¶26

cheated by the petitioner and other accused is more than Rs.90 lakhs.

¶27

4.In such view of the serious nature of the offence, this Court is of the

¶28

firm view that the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

¶29

09-04-2026

¶30

kmi

¶31

2/4