IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Ajith Singh .. . Petitioner Vs

1. Amudha Kumarasamy

2. Debarata Dutta

3. Jeyabarathi

4. State rep by Inspector of Police, CCB Police Station, Tirupur ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483(1)(b) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the Respondents Nos 1 and 2 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirupur in Crl.M.P.No.659 of 2025 by order dated 20.03.2025 and pass orders.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.M.C. ArunMokan For Respondent(s) : Ms. J. Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

This petition is filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No.2 of

2025 on the file of the CCB police Station, Tirupur for the offences under Sections 120B, 409, 420 and 506(1) of IPC seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2 in C.M.P.No.659 of 2025 on 20.03.2025.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is a case of cheating and misappropriation of funds and fabrication of records. The respondents 1 to 3/ accused have induced the defacto complaint to invest huge amount in the JK international and promised to make him as one of the partner in the said company. Believing the words of the respondents 1 to 3/ accused the petitioner/defacto complainant invested huge amount on various dates and the total amount invested by the defacto complaint comes to Rs.12.11 crores and thereafter the defacto complainant came to know the money was collected from him had been not invested in the said firm but invested the money in another firm which was managed by the accused. Once the petitioner/defacto complainant demanded the money from the respondents 1 to 3/accused they failed to return the money and cheated him. However, after persistent demand, they made the defacto complainant as one of the partner firm in i.e J.K. international and siphoned off huge amounts from the partnership firm to another firm.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after verification of the assets and liabilities of the firm defacto complainant came to know that the funds received from him was utilized for settling the debts of the firm and the petitioner was not benefited. Hence, the petitioner/defacto complainant was opted to retire from the partnership firm and the same was refused by the respondents 1 and 2/ accused and they failed to return back the amount of Rs.12.11 crores. All these facts have not been properly submitted before the Sessions Court at the time of granting anticipatory bail to the respondents 1 to 3/ accused. It was submitted that this is not subject matter concerning partnership dispute and it is a case of cheating and misappropriation. Hence, prays to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 and 2/ accused.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the Sessions Court has already considered that there was a partnership agreement entered between the parties, after considering the period of incarceration by the respondents 1 to 3/ accused and after taking note of all the facts and the allegations levelled against the respondents 1 to

3/ accused are borne out of records, has granted bail. The learned counsel further submitted that they have also repaid a sum of Rs. 8 crores to the defacto complainant and that was also placed before the concerned Magistrate and the same was also taken note while granting bail to the respondents 1 to 3/ accused. It is also seen that A1 and A5 are brother and sister and A1 is the husband of A2 and they all belong to a same family. The Sessions Court had taken all the aspects and granted bail to the respondents 2 and 3/accused and prays to dismiss the petition.

5. The learned Government Advocate submitted that totally there are

5 accused in this case only A1 and A3 were arrested and other accused were released on anticipatory bail. The investig