Anbarasu v. The State Rep.By Its, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 26-02-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR 1.Anbarasu S/o.Jayaraman, residing at No.570, Mariamman Kovil Street, Ramanatham, Thozhudur Post, Tittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District - 606 303.

2.Priya W/o. Anbarasu, residing at No.570, Mariamman Kovil Street, Ramanatham, Thozhudur Post, Tittakudi Taluk, Cuddalore District - 606 303.

..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No. 35 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.35 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of Respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

K.Anusarala For Respondent(s):

M/S.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 316(5), 318(2) of BNS in Crime No. 35 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that they promised to get a job for the defacto complainant in Moscow and collected a sum of Rs.4,95,000/-. However, the petitioners did not send the de facto complainant to Russia and instead sent him to Delhi. Thereafter, the de facto complainant returned and questioned the petitioners, who promised to send him to Taiwan and collected an additional sum of Rs.45,000. It is further alleged that when the de facto complainant was about to board the flight, it was found that the visa handed over by the petitioners was fake. Hence, the case has been registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per the original arrangement, the de facto complainant was to go to Russia on a tourist visa and engage in work there. He was sent with a flight ticket to Moscow but did not travel and returned, demanding that the petitioners send him to Taiwan with a proper visa. He further submits that the allegation regarding the fake visa is false and the petitioners have been falsely implicated. He also submits that the

petitioners are ready to cooperate with the investigation and, without prejudice to their defence, are willing to pay ₹1,45,000. Therefore, he prays for anticipatory bail for the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case, stating that the petitioners cheated the de facto complainant by promising to send him to Moscow and issuing a fake visa for Taiwan. She submits that investigation is pending. Hence, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court has perused the FIR and connected materials.

6. Considering the facts and averments made in the FIR, the alleged occurrence taken place in July 2025, and the de facto complainant attempted to travel to Taiwan after paying Rs.45,000/-; and also Considering the fact that petitioners' they are willing to deposit Rs.1,45,000/-, this Court is inclined to grant bail with conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District, on condition that the petitioners shall

execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition: (a) If the petitioners fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate within a period of fifteen (15) 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 slip (Judicial Form No.46 annexed to 'The Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019]'. The learned Magistrate shall obtain a copy of any one of identify proofs to ensure their identity;

(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police everyday 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 aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji v. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];

(e) If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS.

(f) The petitioners are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) to the credit of Crime No.35 of 2026, on such deposit, the de facto complainant is permitted to withdraw the same. 26-02-2026 MPA To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Tittakudi, Cuddalore District. 2.The State Rep.by its, The Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station, Cuddalore District.

(Crime No. 35 of 2026) 3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

MPA 26-02-2026