Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30.07.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 T.Karthik ... Petitioner Vs. State by; The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai – 600 095. Crime No.358 of 2025. ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail pending investigation in Crime No.358 of 2025 on the file of T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai. For Petitioners : M/s.D.Ashok Kumar For Respondent : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) Mr.B.Thiyagarajan for Intervenor O R D E R The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 18.06.2025, for the offence punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.358 of 2025, registered on the file of the respondent, seeks bail. 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the driver of the defacto complainant and his daughter (deceased). However, prior to the death of the deceased, the petitioner managed to obtain 23 grams of gold from her and received a sum of Rs.29,58,000/-. Subsequently, due to health ailments, the deceased died on 16.05.2024. Upon verification of the bank accounts of deceased, the defacto complainant came to know about the aforesaid facts. When the defacto complainant demanded the said jewels and money from the petitioner, he refused to return the same. Hence, the case. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the driver of the defacto complainant and his daughter and the petitioner was looking after the deceased by taking her to hospital regularly for her treatment. However, after the demise of the deceased, the complainant has lodged a false complaint with the respondent police, alleging that the petitioner had taken advantage of the deceased's health condition and misappropriated her money and jewels. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 4. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner, taking advantage of the trust reposed in him by the deceased, had obtained money and jewels, and later transferred the amount to the bank accounts of his father and brother-in-law, apart from pledging the jewels. Though the petitioner had initially agreed to return the jewels, however, at a later point of time had transferred the said sum to the accounts of the petitioner's father and brother- in-law and had also pledged the jewels. It is further submitted that the true nature of the transaction came to light only after the demise of the deceased, and that custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and recover the properties. 5. The learned counsel for the intervenor submits that the act of misappropriation, came to light only after the demise of the deceased. He further submits that though the petitioner had initially promised to return the money and jewels, however, at a later point of time had transferred the said amount to the bank accounts of the petitioner's father and brother-in-law and has also refused to return the same. He further states that the complaint is genuine and not false, as projected by the petitioner. The allegations are serious in nature, involving 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 criminal breach of trust, cheating and misappropriation, and custodial interrogation is essential for proper investigation and recovery of the misappropriated property. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7. Having considered the submissions and the serious nature of the allegations involving criminal breach of trust and misappropriation of valuables from vulnerable person, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve grant of bail at this stage. Granting bail at this juncture may hamper the ongoing investigation and lead to tampering of evidence. 8. Accordingly, this Criminal Original petition is dismissed. 30.07.2025 1/2 RAP To 1. The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 Chennai – 600 095. 2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. rap 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 Crl.O.P.No.20926 of 2025 30.07.2025 1/2 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis