Balakrishnan v. State Rep.By, the Inspector of Police,

ORDER The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 120 B and 420 of I.P.C., in Crime No.1 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner induced the defacto-complainant to join the Iridiyam Project and collected Rs.33,00,000/- under the guise of providing high returns. Hence, the complaint. Page2 of 4

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the case was registered against five persons, but now it proceeds only against this petitioner. He submitted that for the offences under Section 120 B and 420 I.P.C., custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and that he is ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶4Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed this petition on the ground that the petitioner has cheated nearly seventy-five victims. Although, the case was initially registered against five persons four of them were removed from the chargesheet, as they were also victims. The petitioner has cheated approximately Rs.48,50,000/- and custodial interrogation is now required to trace the layering of these funds. Upon instructions, he submitted that the total amount involved exceeds Rs.1 crore.

¶5I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6.Taking into consideration the fact that there are nearly seventy-five victims and a substantial sum of Rs.1 crore involved, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner Page3 of 4 is necessary and the need for further investigation cannot be faulted. Unless the petitioner is taken into custody, the full extent of the involvement and the grievances of the other victims cannot be unearthed. This contention is substantiated by the prosecution's case. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, the petitioner does not deserve anticipatory bail. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09-04-2026 ep To

1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID - Coimbatore City.

2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o7520oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. ep CRLoOPoNo.o7520oofo2026 09-04-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-04-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balakrishnan ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, CBCID - Coimbatore City. Cr.No.1 of 2025. ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest pending investigation in CBCID Coimbatore City Cr.No. 1/2025 on the file of the Respondent police. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Dilip Kumar M For Respondent(s): Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)