P.Lokesh v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN P.Lokesh ..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station, Tirupathur District.

(Crime No.38 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 38 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Vinoth Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.P.Dhileepan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(1), 318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.38 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant was doing the business of buying and selling gold in the name and style of RM Gold Exchange. The allegation against the petitoner is that the petitioner along with other accused

induced the de facto complainant to part with money so as to redeem the gold jewels which was pledged at the Indian Bank and in turn agreed to pledge the same with the de facto complainant whereas, inspite of the fact that the de facto complainant has parted the money for redemption, the petitioner had only given fake jewellery. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. However, the coaccused have been released on bail vide order dated 11.02.2026. He would further submit that though there is an allegation against the petitioner that he had given fake jewels to the de facto complainant, de facto complainant has not submitted the said jewels before the police, which factum is also recorded in the order dated 11.02.2026. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the total amount cheated by the petitioner is about Rs.13,75,000/-. Hence, he vehemently prays to dismiss the present criminal original petition.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. On a perusal of the order dated 11.02.2026, the learned Magistrate has recorded the fact that the de facto complainant failed to produce the fake jewels to the Police. Considering the aforesaid fact and also that the co-accused were remanded and subsequently, granted bail on 11.02.2026, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirupathur, Tirupathur District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only), with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, and on further conditions: (a) If the petitioner 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 ship (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 petitioner shall sign before the respondent police twice a day at 10.30 a.m. for a period of 30 days; (d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on anticipatory 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 petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

25-03-2026 rap

To

1. The Inspector of Police, Natrampalli Police Station, Tirupathur District.

2. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Tirupathur, Tirupathur District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap 25.03.2026