E.D. Govindarajan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and CRL MP No. 6513 of 2026 E.D. Govindarajan ..Petitioner Vs State Rep by The Inspector of Police, T12, Selaiyur,Police station (Crime No. 108 of 2026) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No. 108 of 2026 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner:
Mr.L.Chandra Kumar for Mr.V.T. Srinivasan For Respondent:
Mr.P.Dhileepan Govt.Advocate (Crl Side) For Intervenor:
Mr.M.Uma Shankar
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS in Crime No.108 of 2026 on the file of the respondent
police seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner along with another person has fraudulently cheated the de facto complaint and extorted money in the name of business. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he introduced de facto complainant to 1st accused in furtherance thereof, the de facto complainant parted an amount of Rs.99 lakhs with 1st accused. Hence, this case.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 18.03.2026. 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 cooperate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the petitioner colluded with 1st accused on the pretext of starting computer business and they have induced him to part with huge sum, inspite of parting the said amount, neither the petitioner nor the A1 has responded and they have not at all given any share and not at all given any document evidencing the transaction.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and hence he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and looking at the factual position, the entire transaction appears to be money transaction and in furtherance thereof there are business dealings between the de fact complainant and this petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of a firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. 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 Court No.II, Tambaram 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, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of thirty 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.
09-04-2026 SHL To:
1. The Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Tambaram
2. The Inspector of Police, T12, selaiyur,Police station
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras
C.KUMARAPPAN J.
SHL and CRL MP No. 6513 of 2026 09-04-2026