Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 M.Prasad ... Petitioner Vs. State by: The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai. ... Respondent (Cr.No.348 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.348 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arunkumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervenor : Mr.T.Muruganantham O R D E R The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offence under Section 318(4), 316(2) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.348 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is ranked as A2 working under A1/Manager of Catholic Syrain Bank. As per the instructions of A1, the petitioner went to the house of the defacto complainant and collected gold jewels and handed over the same to A1. After receiving the jewels, A1 pledged the same in Catholic Syrain Bank in the name of A3. Hence the complaint has been registered. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this petitioner is only a customer relation officer and he went to the house of the defacto complainant and collected jewels and handed over the same to A1 and he has not benefited from pledging the gold jewels and it was done by A1 in the name of A3. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the entire gold jewels were handed over to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner joined hands with A1 and A4 pledged the jewels of defacto complainant in another bank and thereby swindled a sum of Rs.90 lakhs and oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that though it was stated in the FIR that the petitioner went to collect the gold jewels and handed over to A1 and subsequent investigation reveals that there are forged withdrawal slips and unauthorized 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 withdrawal of loan amount by A1 and A2. He further submitted that the petitioner acted as a cashier and facilitated with A1 to swindle the money of Rs.90 lakhs by using forged documents. Hence, he oppose to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegation, since no one is arrested and no property/jewels have been recovered and taking note of the fact that investigation in this case at preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 22.09.2025 ssi To 1.The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police, J-1, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. K.RAJASEKAR , J. ssi 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 Crl.O.P.No.25032 of 2025 22.09.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis