A.Karthick v. State, Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24-04-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and Crl.M.P.No.5635 of 2026 A.Karthick Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7300 of 2026
1. J.Sakthipriya
2. S. Ananthi Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7653 of 2026 Vs State, represented by The Inspector of Police S7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai.
Crime No.1099 of 2025 Respondents in both cases Common Prayer Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., seeking to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.1099 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioners Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7300 of 2026:
Mr.K.Amirtharaj For Petitioners Petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7653 of 2026:
Mr.S.Sridhar For Respondents in both cases:
Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl Side) Mr.G.Arun for Intervenor
COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316 (2), 318(4), 318(2) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.1099 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2. There are four accused in Crime No.1099 of 2025. The petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.7653 of 2026 are A3 and A4 and the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.7300 of 2026 is A2.
3. The allegations against the petitioners are that the petitioners along with A1 viz., Sathishkumar have induced the defacto complainant to invest Rs.14,48,588/- on the pretext of giving 20% share in the Meena Supermarket. However, the petitioners have neither repaid the amount nor given any share in the Meena Supermarket to the de facto complainant. Hence, the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was no criminal intention to cheat the de facto complainant. However due to the loss in the business, the petitioners were not in a position to repay the same. The de fact complainant is also a partner in the Meena Super Market.
5. The learned Government advocate appearing for the respondent Police would submits that the occurrence took place on 13.12.2024 and FIR came to be registered on 25.10.2025.
6. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the intervenor would vehemently contend that the defacto complainant is a mechanic and he has three daughters. These petitioners with a calculative attempt, cheated the de facto complainant. it is the further submission of the learned counsel for the intervenor that the petitioners may be directed to pay the cheated amount.
7. I have considered the rival submission.
8. While looking into the factual position, there appears to be some money transaction between the petitioners and the de facto complainant on 13.12.2024 in connection of commencement of commercial establishment viz., Meena Supermarket. However, from the rival submissions, this Court could only see the monetary transaction between the petitioners and the de facto complainant in the year 2024 and the registration of FIR on 25.10.2024. Though the learned Government Advocate and the counsel for the intervenor object to the grant of Anticipatory Bail to the petitioners, this Court does not find any ground for custodial interrogation of the petitioners. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.
9. Accordingly, both the Criminal Original Petitions are ordered. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order
copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Munsif II, Alandur, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with two sureties for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that: [a] the petitioners and the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;
[b] the petitioners shall report before the Inspector of Police, S7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai, twice a day at 10.30 a.m. and 05.30 p.m. for a period of 30 days and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;
[c] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.
[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action 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 vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.
Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24-04-2026 vum Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order To
1. The Inspector of Police, S7, Madipakkam Police Station, Chennai.
2. The Judicial Munsif II, Alandur
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
vum and Crl.M.P.No.5635 of 2026 24-04-2026