Saranraj v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 01-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Saranraj No 227, Ambedkar Nagar, Periyapalayam, Thiruvallur, Tamilnadu ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police JJ Nagar Police Station Chennai .

(Cr.No.208 of 2026) .

..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest at the hands of the respondent pending investigation in Cr. No.208 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr. Senthilvel For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 126(2), 140(4), 351(3) of BNS, in Crime No.208 of 2026, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's husband sold a car to A1 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-, and the said vehicle was not supported by proper documents. It is alleged that, on the date of occurrence, a quarrel arose in this regard, during which the petitioner along with four other accused abducted the defacto complainant's husband. Based on the complaint, a case has been registered against the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 21.03.2026 and that the defacto complainant's husband had deceived A1 by selling a car without proper registration. He further submitted that, in furtherance A1 questioned the defacto complainant's husband, and that the petitioner has no role to play in the alleged occurrence except being a friend of A1, and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioner is a practising advocate. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and, upon instructions, submitted that only based on the confession statement of A1, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner A1 is in judicial custody. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Taking into consideration of the totality of the circumstances and the fact that the petitioner has been implicated only based on the confession statement of the first accused and taking into consideration of the nature of the allegation against him, this Court is of the firm view, that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary. Hence, 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 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, Ambattur, 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 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) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am and 5.30 pm. for a period of 15 days and thereafter as and when required;

(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.

01-04-2026 DRL To 1,The Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2.The Inspector of Police, JJ Nagar Police Station, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL

01-04-2026