Naresh @ Naresh Babu Vs State rep.by

Naresh @ Naresh Babu vs State rep.by

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Apr 30, 2026

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1449500

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/1449500
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Decided On: Apr 30, 2026
Case Number: CRL OP/10601/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Naresh @ Naresh Babu

Respondent

State rep.by

Excerpt

.....police for the offences punishable under sections 120-b, 465, 468, 471, 477a, 420 and 34 of ipc, in crime no.7 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.2. the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner conspired withother accused and misappropriated the funds of the de facto complainant’s company viz., m/s.kwang sung brake india private limited (ksbil) to the tune of rs.4,10,82,699/-. hence the case.3. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that thepetitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. he further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this court. hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.4. learned government advocate (criminal side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.5. learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainantvehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the accused had caused a huge loss to the de facto complainant’s company viz., m/s.kwang sung brake india private limited (ksbil) to the tune of rs.4,10,82,699/-.6. heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.7. considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,taking note of the nature of allegation and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. therefore, this court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.8. accordingly, the criminal original petition stands dismissed. ham to1. the judicial magistrate no.i, kancheepuram.2. the inspector of police,3. the public prosecutor, high court, madras.g.k.ilanthiraiyan, j.ham

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Naresh @ Naresh Babu ... Petitioner Vs. The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, (Crime No.7 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.7 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Parthiban For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.B.Karthik

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 477A, 420 and 34 of IPc, in Crime No.7 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner conspired with

other accused and misappropriated the funds of the de facto complainant’s company viz., M/s.Kwang Sung Brake India Private Limited (KSBIL) to the tune of Rs.4,10,82,699/-. Hence the case.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is in no way connected with the alleged offence and is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the de facto complainant

vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that the accused had caused a huge loss to the de facto complainant’s company viz., M/s.Kwang Sung Brake India Private Limited (KSBIL) to the tune of Rs.4,10,82,699/-.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case,

taking note of the nature of allegation and also considering the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much required. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Kancheepuram.

2. The Inspector of Police,

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ham

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties Naresh @ Naresh Babu vs State rep.by Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan