Balamurugan Manoharan v. The State Rep By, the Inspector of Police

O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316, 318, 296, 351 and 61 of BNS, in Crime No.116 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

¶2The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, conspired to fraudulently obtain personal loans in the names of various persons and routed the loan amounts through the petitioner's bank account, thereby cheating the victims. Hence, the case.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is A4 and according to him A1 to A3 are the owners and he is only an employee, and according to the prosecution case, the amount which had been transacted to his account is only Rs. 30 lakhs, and to show his bona fides, he is ready and willing to deposit Rs. 10 lakhs.

¶4The learned counsel for the intervenor opposed the anticipatory bail and submitted that the petitioner is an operational conduit and he performed his conduct where all the seven victims received their credentials and shared the information, and he created a WhatsApp group with the 7 victims and thereby he has cheated Rs.7.40 crores. Therefore, if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, it is too difficult to find out the money trail and there would be a strong possibility of tampering with the witnesses.

¶5The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the estimated financial loss to all the victims is Rs.7.40 crores. Though so far they have come to know Rs.7.77 crores is involved, there is a possibility of the cheated amount increasing to the tune of Rs.20 crores and the investigation is pending.

¶6Considering the gravity of the allegation and the quantum of cheating, though the learned counsel for the petitioner volunteered to pay Rs.10 lakhs, this Court is of the firm view, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the intervenor, that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail it would definitely affect the investigation and there is a possibility of tampering with the witnesses. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

¶7Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.

07.07.2026 cda

C.KUMARAPPAN, J. cda To

1.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Shollinganallur, Chennai – 600 119.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

07.07.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Balamurugam Manoharan ... Petitioner Vs. The State Represented by, The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Shollinganallur, Chennai – 600 119. (Crime No.116 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in connection with Crime No.116 of 2026 on the file of respondent Police. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Chandrasekar For Intervenor : Mr.N.S.Sivakumar For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)