CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 1 of 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21-08-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.RAMESH CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 Mohamed Ibrahim ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Represented by The Station House Officer, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry. Crime No.01 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest at the hands of the respondent pending investigation in Crime No.01 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s): For Intervenor(s): Mr.K.Rahul Mr.R.Vinoth Ravi For Respondent(s): Mrs.G.Djearany Omprakash, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Puducherry ORDER The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS @ 318(4), 316(5), 319(2) of BNS r/w 3(5) of BNS @ 318(4), 316(5), 319(2), 111 of BNS r/w 3(5) of BNS, in Crime No.01 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 2 of 6 2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused, induced the de facto complainant to invest money in their business under the false promise of repayment with profit, thereby cheating the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,53,23,658/-. Hence, the case. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner runs a jewellery business. He further submitted that the petitioner merely sold gold worth Rs. 8,00,000/- to accused No.1 (A1) upon receipt of payment, has no role in the alleged offence of cheating, and has been falsely implicated in this case. It was further submitted that the petitioner is arrayed as A18, and the other co- accused, namely A9 and A10, have already been enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. The learned counsel also submitted that the sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- was transferred directly to the individual bank account of the petitioner and not to the account of the business firm. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner is a partner in 'City Gold Jewelers'. He further contended that the petitioner (A18), along with the other accused persons, colluded together and cheated the de facto complainant to the tune of Rs. 4,53,23,658/-. Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 3 of 6 5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), Puducherry, appearing for the respondent police, vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application and submitted that the petitioner has neither delivered the gold nor returned the money, and is also a close associate of A4. 6. In support of her contention, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted a report, wherein it is extracted hereunder: “A18 Mohamed Ibrahim is one of the proprietors/partners of City Gold Jewellery, Kadayanallur, and a close associate of A4 Abdul Kader. Investigation further disclosed that a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- being part of the cheated amount, was directly transferred by A1 Mani @ Manikandan @ Syed Mohamed Buhari to the bank account of Mohamed Ibrahim. The materials collected during investigation prima facie disclose that A18 Mohamed Ibrahim had knowingly participated in receiving and diverting the cheated money and thereby facilitated the concealment of the proceeds of crime. A18 Mohamed Ibrahim, despite revived part of the cheated amount, neither supplied the agreed gold bars nor refunded the amount to the accused person or the victims, thereby disclosing his active involvement in the commission of the offence. Hence, A18 Mohamed Ibrahim has been arrayed as an accused in this case.” 7. She further submitted that the investigation is still in progress and, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly necessary. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 4 of 6 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both sides and have carefully perused the materials available on record. 9. Considering the gravity of the offence, the nature of the allegations levelled against the petitioner, the fact that the investigation is still pending, and that neither the gold jewellery nor the alleged cheated amount has been recovered from the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary. Hence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 21-08-2026 CDA https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 5 of 6 To 1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Puducherry. 2.The Station House Officer, CBCID Police Station, Puducherry. 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 __________Page 6 of 6 N.RAMESH J. CDA CRL OP No. 20849 of 2026 21-08-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis