BENGALURU: A city civil and sessions court dismissed an anticipatory bail petition of Nagaraj Marimuthu from Tamil Nadu over a complaint filed by IAS officer Pallavi Akurati, who was allegedly cheated after paying the money online to purchase a saree.
She tried to purchase a Madurai Sungudi cotton saree through a YouTube vendor after watching a video uploaded by Poornima Collection. She had sent a screenshot of the selected saree to the specified WhatsApp number and paid Rs 850, including shipping charges, to the same mobile number through GooglePay on March 10, 2025. But she was cheated and the vendor did not send her the product. Pallavi filed the complaint with the CEN crime police station, East Division.
“The grounds urged for anticipatory bail are bald and vague, and such grounds cannot be entertained for granting extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail under the facts and circumstances of the case. It is true that the complainant was cheated by collecting a small amount online. The offences of cheating, etc., committed through online are always considered serious, as the perpetrators of the crime of this nature always try to conceal their identity.
The identity of the accused and the chances of his involvement in other similar offences are yet to be traced and ascertained by the investigating officer. Under such circumstances, the petitioner at this stage is not entitled for an order of anticipatory bail,” said Kemparaju, Judge, 55th Additional City Civil and Sessions Court, rejecting the petition by Nagaraj Marimuthu (27), a resident of Seetharam Dass Nagar in Theni district of Tamil Nadu.
The court observed the documents do not reveal in what way the petitioner is related to the crime. There should be a valid apprehension of arrest by a person to file an anticipatory bail application. In this case, the FIR is registered against an unknown person. In the bail application, no particulars of implicating or the possibility of implicating the petitioner are forthcoming. When the petitioner is no way connected to the crime, a blanket anticipatory bail cannot be granted to such a person at this stage, the court said.
The petitioner contended that the complaint was against Poornima Collection and not against him, and his name is not mentioned in the complaint. The complainant herself stated that the vendor may be committing mass cheating and has accumulated a huge amount, he alleged, while expressing the apprehension of his arrest by the police.
Filing objections against granting anticipatory bail, the prosecution contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner.