Suresh Vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Suresh vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Mar 27, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1433207

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1433207
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan
Decided On: Mar 27, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/7768/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Suresh

Respondent

The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police,

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated : 27.03.2026coramthe hon'ble dr. justice c.kumarappan suresh ... petitioner vs. the state of tamil nadu rep. by the inspector of police, crime no.145 of 2025 ... 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.145 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. for petitioner : ms.p.neelavathi for respondent : mr.p.dhileepan, government advocate (crl.side)orderthe petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the bharatiya nyaya sanhita, 2023, in crime no.145 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had induced the defacto complainant to invest a sum of rs.10,00,000/- under the pretext of “high returns” and thereafter, the petitioner had cheated the de facto complainant. hence, the case.3. it is seen that this court had earlier dismissed the petitioner’santicipatory bail petitions in crl.o.p.nos.20129 and 33527 of 2025 by orders dated 25.09.2025 and 15.12.2025 respectively. however, without any change in circumstances, the present petition has filed seeking anticipatory bail.4. considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of theallegations, this court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. hence, this criminal original petition stands dismissed. cda to 1.the inspector of police, 2.the public prosecutor, high court of madras.c.kumarappan, j.cda

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.03.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Suresh ... Petitioner Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Crime No.145 of 2025 ... 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.145 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Ms.P.Neelavathi For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in Crime No.145 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner had induced the de

facto complainant to invest a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- under the pretext of “High Returns” and thereafter, the petitioner had cheated the de facto complainant. Hence, the case.

3. It is seen that this Court had earlier dismissed the petitioner’s

anticipatory bail petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.20129 and 33527 of 2025 by orders dated 25.09.2025 and 15.12.2025 respectively. However, without any change in circumstances, the present petition has filed seeking anticipatory bail.

4. Considering the gravity of the offence and the nature of the

allegations, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not deserve the relief of anticipatory bail. Hence, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. cda To 1.The Inspector of Police, 2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

cda

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Suresh vs The State Represented by its, Inspector of Police, Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan