Rajneesh Verma v. The State Rep.By, the Inspectof of Police,

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

28.01.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections 66(D) of IT Act and 318(4), 336(2) and 338 of BNS (Sections 420, 465 & 467 of Indian Penal Code, 1860), in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the accused person had misappropriated a sum of Rs.52 lakhs from the defacto complainant. Hence, the case. Page2 of 4

¶3The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that he was remanded to judicial custody on 28.01.2026 and there are nine accused involved in this case. Even according to the prosecution, a sum of Rs.42 lakhs has already been recovered. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated and he has been implicated only during investigation without any direct material. Hence, he prayed for bail.

¶4The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would strongly oppose the bail application on the ground that the petitioner, by impersonating Anish Presanna Motors, which had an account with the defacto complainant bank and with whom the bank had long standing transaction, made a fake call and thereby cheated the bank to the tune of about Rs.50 lakhs. It is further submitted that with great difficulty they have secured the petitioner and the investigation is at the preliminary stage and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardize the prosecution case.

¶5I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

¶6Considering the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, it is seen that the accused person has misappropriated a sum of Rs. 52 lakhs from the Page3 of 4 defacto complainant. Further, taking into consideration the strong objection of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the serious allegation against the petitioner and the fact that the investigation is at a preliminary stage, this Court is of the view that if the petitioner is enlarged on bail, the same would jeopardize the prosecution case. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 25-03-2026 NSL

¶1The Inspector of Police, CCD II Police Station, Coimbatore District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. CRLoOPoNo.o7533oofo2026 C.KUMARAPPAN,oJ. NSL CRLoOPoNo.o7533oofo2026 25-03-2026 Page4oofo4

Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25-03-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rajneesh Verma ..Petitioner Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, CCD II Police Station, Coimbatore District. (Crime No.28/2025) ..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in Crime No.28 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Prabhakaran For Respondent: Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)