T.Saravanan v. State Rep by

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

15.12.2025 for the offence under Sections 127(2), 118(1), 308(3) of BNS r/w 66E of IT Act in Crime No.390 of 2025registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner borrowed money from the defacto complainant on agreed interest to start a business and committed default in payment and when the defacto complainant went to his spa demanding repayment of money, the petitioner and other accused assaulted him brutally and tied him with a rope and illegally confined him for several hours and robbed gold chain weighing 3.5 soverigns of gold ring and swiped a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- from his credit card and withdrawn Rs.2,00,000/- from the debit card. Hence the respondent police registered a case against the petitioner Page2 of 5

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is his business partner and due to money dispute a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and sought for bail to the petitioner.

¶4The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner has not paid the borrowed amount and cheated him and when the same was questioned the petitioner illegally confined him and also robbed gold chain weighing 3.5 soverign of gold ring and swiped a sum of Rs.8,40,000/- from his credit card and withdrawn Rs.2,00,00/- from the debit card. Hence opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation is not yet completed and the property and cash was not yet recovered. Hence, he opposed to grant bail to the petitioner. Page3 of 5

6.Considering the submissions made by both sides and the stolen property is not recovered and investigation in this case is not yet completed, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Hence, this Criminal original petition is dismissed. 03-02-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order SMN To

¶1The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai.

¶2The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras Page4 of 5 CRLoOPoNo.o2323oofo2026 K.RAJASEKAR,oJ. smn CRLoOPoNo.o2323oofo2026 03-02-2026 Page5oofo5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-02-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR T.Saravanan S/o. Thangavel, Kalaignar Karunanidhi Nagar, Chennai District. ..Petitioner(s) Vs State rep by The Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station, Chennai. Crime No.390 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Prayer: This petition is filed under Section 483 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail concerned in Crime No.390 of 2026 on the file of the Inspector of Police, R-5, Virugambakkam Police Station,Chennai on such terms and conditions as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the Circumstances of the case and thus render justice. Page1 of 5 For Petitioner(s): M/s.R.Parthiban M.Shimyon Edwin For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Gopinath, Govt Adocate( Crl side)