R.Josphin Beaulh v. The State Rep by the Inspector of Police

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

09.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Page2 of 4 IPC, in Crime No.114 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant and her husband, Sanjaidasan, were approached by the accused persons for getting a loan of Rs.5 lakh, for which their Aadhaar card, phone number, cheque book and other documents were obtained by the accused persons. By using those documents, and without the knowledge of the de facto complainant, the accused obtained loans from four banks to the tune of Rs.38,88,332/-, and without giving any amount to the de facto complainant, they swindled the entire sum. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered. On further investigation, it was found that the accused persons had cheated nearly 17 members in a similar way, thereby swindling a total of Rs.2,69,15,339/-, no amount having been recovered, and the investigation is still at the preliminary stage.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 09.01.2026 and has been behind bars since then for 54 days. The learned counsel also invited the attention of this Court to the bail granted to A2 in Crl.O.P.No.3538 of 2026 dated 25.02.2026. But while considering the facts of the second accused's bail order, it was clearly noted that the second accused acted only upon the instructions of the first accused and received only a commission. Page3 of 4

¶4At this juncture, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent police submitted that a sum of Rs.2,94,77,000/- was cheated, affecting about 20 victims, and the investigation is still ongoing. No amount has been recovered from any source.

¶5The learned counsel for the intervener also objected to the grant of bail and supported the submissions of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side).

¶6Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility of tampering with witnesses. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this juncture. Hence, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 03-03-2026 cda To

1.The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-IV Batch, Avadi City, Chennai - 600 054.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o5363oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPANoJ. cda CRLoOPoNo.o5363oofo2026 03-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN R.Josphin Beaulh W/o. Rajasekar, No.5/22B, Irulapalaiyam Road, Kuthambakkam, Tiruvallur District - 600 124. ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By The Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch, EDF-IV Batch, Avadi City, Chennai - 600 054. Crime No.114 of 2025 ..Respondent(s) Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.114 o f 2025 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s): For Intervenor: Mr.K.Kathiresan Mr.L.Leovalavan For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)