Rakul v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26-03-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Rakul S/o.Anandhan, No.114/o Merku Theru, Ponnirai (PO), Thiruthuraipoondi (TK), Thanjur District 610203.

..Petitioner/A3 Vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Oragadam Police Station, Kanceepuram District, Crime No.(06/ 2026)

...Respondent/

Complainant Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, to enlarge the petitioner in the event of arrest on Bail in Oragadam Police Station, Crime No 06/ 2026 pending on the file of the respondent Police Station, Kancheepuram District.

For Petitioner:

Mr.Murugesan K For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner/A3, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 344, 316(4), 306, 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS),

2023, in Crime No.6 of 2026, on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner/A3, along with other accused, had damaged the materials, namely the injector, Zozzles, and Control values in the de-facto complainant's company, which are worth about Rs.40,000,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) and illegally sold the above-said materials. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A3 submitted that the petitioner is innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the de-facto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that there was some huge misappropriation to the worth of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores Only) and the misappropriation took place in the month of May 2025. However, only through the audit, they came to know about the misappropriation, and there are fifteen

accused; this petitioner is the third accused, and he is a trainee in the above concern. Hence, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Heard the submission made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Though the learned Government (Crl.Side) has strongly opposed the anticipatory bail application, taking into consideration of the unearthing of misappropriation through the documentary evidence, that too through the audit and the occurrence took place on 01.05.2025, this Court is of the firm view that, at this length of time, no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required and the entire issue can be sorted out through the documents and proper enquiry. Therefore, 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 is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudoor, 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 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 report before the respondent police, twice a day at 10.30 a.m., and 5.30 p.m., for a period of thirty (30) days 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 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.

26-03-2026 dk

Copy to:

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumpudoor.

2. The Inspector of Police, Oragadam Police Station, Kanceepuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dk CRL OP No. 7723 of 2026 26-03-2026