Jyothish Kumar Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Jyothish Kumar vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Orders Decided Apr 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1444523

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/1444523
Court: Chennai Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10121/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jyothish Kumar

Respondent

The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Excerpt

.....petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under sections 120b, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of ipc in crime no.06 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is one of theoriginal promoter shareholders and directors of m/s. sks resorts india private limited and it is alleged that a1 was inducted into the company and the shareholding was reorganised so that each of the four shareholders including the defacto complainant held 25% amounting to rs.7,50,000/- shares each. it is further alleged that, a1 with a calculated intention to seize unilateral control of company, fabricated the defacto complainant’s resignation from the board of directors with effect from 04.09.2019 and filed form dir -12 with the registrar of companies only on 03.08.2022 nearly three years after the alleged resignation, in clear violation of the companies act mandate of filing within thirty days. it is further alleged that a1 fraudulently recorded the transfer of the defacto complainant’s entire rs.7,50,000/- shares in his favour on 04.09.2019, without nay valid share transfer deed, stamped instrument, delivery of original share certificates or lawful consideration. hence, the case.3. the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that thepetitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this court.. hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.4. the learned government advocate (crl. side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. the learned counsel appearing for the intervenor reiterated theprosecution case and submitted that petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of rs.7,50,000/-.. hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Jyothish Kumar ... Petitioners Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Coimbatore City. (Crime No.06 of 2026). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail, in connection with Crime No.06 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners : Mr.S.Senthamizhan For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhilpeean Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.V.V.Kathiresan

ORDER

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.06 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is one of the

original promoter shareholders and Directors of M/s. SKS Resorts India Private Limited and it is alleged that A1 was inducted into the company and the shareholding was reorganised so that each of the four shareholders including the defacto complainant held 25% amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- shares each. It is further alleged that, A1 with a calculated intention to seize unilateral control of Company, fabricated the defacto complainant’s resignation from the Board of Directors with effect from 04.09.2019 and filed FORM DIR -12 with the Registrar of Companies only on 03.08.2022 nearly three years after the alleged resignation, in clear violation of the Companies Act mandate of filing within thirty days. It is further alleged that A1 fraudulently recorded the transfer of the defacto complainant’s entire Rs.7,50,000/- shares in his favour on 04.09.2019, without nay valid share transfer deed, stamped instrument, delivery of original share certificates or lawful consideration. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the

petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court.. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor reiterated the

prosecution case and submitted that petitioner has cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/-.. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

6. Considering the gravity of the offene committed by the petitioner, this

Court is of the view of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 30.04.2026 Sma To

1. The Inspector of Police, CCB-II, Coimbatore City.

2. . The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN.,J.

Sma 30.04.2026

Same Court & Year Chennai Orders · 2026 Same Parties Jyothish Kumar vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan