S.Banuvalli v. The State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police (Crime)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. S.Banuvalli

2. Sundaram

3. Suganya ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep. by, The Inspector of Police (Crime) M - 3 Puzhal Police Station, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

..Respondent(s) Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.402 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police (Crime), M - 3 Puzhal Police Station, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.B.Ganesha Moorthy For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2) and 318(4) of BNS Act in Crime No.402 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioners is that, the petitioners were conducting diwali fund scheme, in which the de facto complainant had participated. However, during the course of the scheme, the petitioners had stopped the said scheme stating that the subscribers have not come forward to pay the chit amount and thereby committed cheating in respect of a sum of Rs.18,41,000/- paid by the de facto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submits that reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that petitioners have got previous cases of similar nature and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available.

6. Though the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) opposed to grant

anticipatory bail to the petitioners, considering the nature of allegations put forth against the petitioners and the period of commission of offence and the date of registration of First Information Report, at this length of time, no custodial interrogation is necessary for the petitioners and apart from that the petitioners 1 and 3 are women and the second petitioner is an aged person, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail, subject to certain 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 is made ready, before the District Munsifcum-Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- each (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 petitioners fail to surrender before the concerned learned 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.KUMARAPPAN, J.

rap (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 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 25-03-2026 rap To

1. The Inspector of Police (Crime) M - 3 Puzhal Police Station, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.

2. The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Madhavaram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.