Ananthi v. The State Rep.By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN S.Ananthi ..Petitioner Vs The State rep.by, The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

Cr.No.10 of 2026.

..Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the Petitioner/Accused on Anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Cr.No.10 of 2026 pending investigation on file of the respondent police. For Petitioner:

Mr.M.Sarathkumar For Respondent:

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

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 316(2), 318(4) BNS in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant along with

two others have made false promise for job opportunity in abroad and in this connection, they cheated money to the tune of Rs.13,29,500/-. Hence, this complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR came to be registered on 15.11.2025. He further submitted that the petitioner suffers from 80% disability, resulting in difficulty with speaking and walking. In support of this contention, he produced a unique Disability ID issued by the Government of India and a disability certificate issued by Government of Tamil Nadu.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that this petitioner along with other accused have received a sum of Rs.13.29 lakhs by making false promise of securing overseas employment. Such occurrence took place between 01.05.2022 to 19.8.2025 and in this connection FIR came to be registered on 15.11.2025 under section 316 and 318 of BNS. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, now the point to be considered is whether custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required or not. While looking at the factual position, the occurrence took place in the year 2025 and the petitioner is a woman with 80% disability. Hence, considering the physical condition of the petitioner and upon the fact that the occurrence of the year 2025, this Court is of the 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 her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-1, Nagapattinam, 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 one week 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.

16-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The Judicial Magistrate-1, Nagapattinam

2. The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Nagapattinam District.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL 16-04-2026