Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.07.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 1.Isaq Abraham 2.Isravel 3.Panjavarnam@ Esther ... Petitioners Vs. The State rep by its. The Inspector of Police, T10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Chennai -600 062. (Crime No.85 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, praying to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.85 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.T.V.G.Kartheeban For Respondent : Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 O R D E R The petitioners who apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 294(b) and 506(1) IPC in Crime No.85 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail. 2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.48,91,000/- from various persons on the premise of providing job at abroad, however, they did not arrange the job. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners have paid 75% of the amount to the victims. Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4. The said submission was objected to by the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police by stating that this is a case of job racketing, in which, a sum of Rs.48,91,000/- was cheated by the accused persons on the promise to give job at foreign country. Believing 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 such words, the victims gave the amount and the amount has not been recovered so far. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 5. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioners have paid 75% of the amount to the victims, no proof was produced before this Court, this Court is of the firm view that if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail, it would be difficult for the victims to get back the amount. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 14.07.2026 ssb 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 To 1.The Inspector of Police, T10, Thirumullaivoyal Police Station, Chennai -600 062. 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 C.KUMARAPPAN, J. ssb Crl.O.P.No.17614 of 2026 14.07.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis