Sathesh v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Sathesh ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, T2 Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.728 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 Crime No.728 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.John Sathyan Senior Advocate for Baskaran Sivaraman For Respondent :

M/s.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.Venkatraman 1/7

O R D E R

The petitioner herein apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.728 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is running various franchised snack shops and in the year 2024, the defacto complainant and his wife were approached by the petitioner herein for franchising his brand name "Nellai Karuppatti Coffee" and induced him to join him as franchise and accordingly defacto complainant spent Rs. 52 lakhs and joined as franchise, however they were not able to continuously run the franchise and they sought for return of funds paid by them and also requested them to take back the franchise, however petitioner called the defacto complainant's wife and asked her to meet in the Head Office and accordingly she met him and demanded for Rs.55 lakhs, however, petitioner herein informed her that he could only arrange Rs.40 lakhs and she needs to adjust her, unable to bear the humiliation, she attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison. Hence, the case.

2/7

3. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that petitioner herein has only called the defacto complainant and his wife for negotiation, however the victim came to the office and behaved violently and inspite of his best efforts for negotiation, she abused him in filthy language and thereafter went home and attempted to commit suicide. He further relied on the CCTV footages stating that the petitioner had not demanded sexual favour Hence, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner stating that if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail, it would hamper the investigation.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. . Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3/7

6. The allegation in the FIR reveals that the petitioner has called the defacto complainant and wife for negotiation and though it is stated that petitioner demanded sexual favour, this Court is of the view that since it is a case of attempt to commit suicde custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, hence this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions:

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ambattur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that:

[a] if the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, this order shall stand automatically cancelled;

[b] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the Application for Surety ship [Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of 4/7

Practice, 2019']. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 30.01.2026 sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur 2.The Inspector of Police, T2 Ambattur Estate Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, 5/7

High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

sma 6/7

30.01.2026 7/7