Suresh v. State Rep.By, Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Suresh ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep. by Inspector of Police M5, Ennore Police Station Ennore, Chennai.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.562 of 2024 pending on the file of the respondent Police.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Vignesh For Respondent : Mr. P. Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.562 of 2024, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant lodged a complaint stating that he and the petitioner were colleagues working in ITC Company. It is alleged that the petitioner obtained a sum of Rs.4,45,000/- on 01.07.2021 in the name of the de facto complainant, on the representation that he would repay the same by paying the EMIs. It is further alleged that, on 06.07.2021, the petitioner again obtained an additional amount. According to the de facto complainant, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.28,000/- and thereafter paid the EMIs only for a period of 17 months, till January 2023, and subsequently defaulted in repayment of the loan. It is further alleged that the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs.9,05,761/-, which had become stale, and thereafter switched off his mobile phone and absconded. It is also alleged that, when the de facto complainant approached the petitioner at his residence and demanded repayment, he threatened her with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. From the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, it is seen that the allegation against the petitioner is that he induced the de facto complainant to open a bank account and avail a loan through internet banking and thereby cheated a sum of Rs.11,39,433/-. It is further seen that the First Information Report came to be registered in the year 2024. Taking into consideration the above circumstances and the fact that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

6. 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, Tiruvottiyur 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: 3/6

(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 a.m., for a period of 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.

10.04.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvottiyur. 2.The Inspector of Police M5, Ennore Police Station Ennore, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 10.04.2026 6/6