Soundharyarajan v. State Rep By The Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN 1.Soundharyarajan 2.Gowri ... Petitioners Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
Crime No.135 of 2026 ... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in the above Cr.No.135 of 2026 on the file of the respondent.
For Petitioners : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor : Mr.J.Ashok
ORDER
The petitioners apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 420 of IPC, in Crime No.135 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.
1/5
2. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners on the pretext of getting Tasmac license had received a sum of Rs.31 lakhs and thereby cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners are ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel for the intervenor vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners stating that the petitioners have cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.31 lakhs. 2/5
6. While the learned counsel for the Intervenor strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail, the complaint would indirectly implicate the de facto complainant as an accused. as the defacto complainant also shares some responsibility for the crime. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.
7.Accordingly, the petitioners are 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 No.V, Coimbatore, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 petitioners 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 3/5
of identify proofs to ensure their identity;
(c) The petitioners shall report before the respondent police twice daily at 10.30 a.m., and 05.30.p.m., for a period of 30 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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 petitioners thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act. 17.04.2026 sma To
1. Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore.
2.The Inspector of Police, Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
C.KUMARAPPAN.J.
sma 17.04.2026 (1/2) 5/5