J.Rajendraprasad v. State Rep.By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.Rajendraprasad ... Petitioner Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station, Salem District.

(Crime No.112 of 2026) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.112 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Kanagaraju For Respondent : Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Advocate for Mr.I.Arokiasamy

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent Police for the offence punishable under Sections 196(2), 296(b) and 351(2) of BNS in Crime No.112 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1 / 6

2.

The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, as the Secretary of the Vasavi Vidya Trust, a public charitable trust, along with other accused misused the funds of the Trust. Consequently, a case in Crime No.75 of 2026 was registered against the petitioner and others for the offences under Sections 296(b), 316(4) and 318(3) of BNS. Subsequenlty, on the alleged date of occurrence, the petitioner and other accused, abused the de facto complainant, an Assistant Professor and other staff members and intimidated them to withdraw the earlier case. Hence, the preset case was registered.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, a septuagenarian, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that even taking into consideration the entire averments in the FIR at their face value, the ingredients of the alleged offences cannot be made out against the petitioner. He also submitted that a case of civil dispute has been given a criminal colour. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any stringent conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2 / 6

4.

Learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 5.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the de facto complainant/intervenor, vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail stating that the petitioner is involved in allegations of a serious nature and has repeatedly intimidated the witnesses. 6.

Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of the allegation and further taking note of the fact that the custody of the petitioner is not required, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions. 8.

Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem District, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 3 / 6

Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum, to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police everyday at 10.30.a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

[c] the petitioner shall not abscond during during investigation or trial;

[d] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; [e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];

4 / 6

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

30.04.2026 ham To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station.

Salem District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5 / 6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

ham 30.04.2026 2/2 6 / 6