Ronak Goyal v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Ronak Goyal ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.9940 of 2026 Mukesh Goyal ... Petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.10098 of 2026 Vs.

The State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Avadi City CCB Police Station, Chennai (Crime No.17 of 2026).

... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail, in connection with Crime No.17 of 2026, pending investigation on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Leelesh Sundaram for M/s. Nathan Associates For Respondent :

Mr.P.Dhilpeean Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor :

Mrs.P.R.Umamaheswari 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioners who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 420 of IPC in Crime No.17 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant had purchased an apartment comprised in Survey Nos.806/3 and 168/2 bearing plot No.47/4, Green Garden Annai Avenue, Om Sakthi Nagar, Kallikuppam, Chennai from M/s, Loyal Housing Development Pvt Ltd. The extent sod to the defacto complainant was that which was vested with M/s. Loyal Housing Development Pvt Ltd. It is further alleged that at the time of sale, the total sale consideration was split up into three columns wherein a part amount had to be paid to the Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board, however the petitioners as well as the M/s. Loyal Housing Development Pvt Ltd did not pay the deposit to the M/s. Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board for the entire construed flats and an amount to the tune of Rs,34, 72,134/- was due and payable to M/s. Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board. 2/6

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submit that without prejudice to the rights and contention, the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs each to the credit of Crime No. 17 of 2026. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) reiterated the prosecution case and opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submit that the petitioners failed to pay a sum of Rs,34, 72,134/- to the M/s. Chennai Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Board for the entire construed flats. Hence, he vehemently opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances that the dispute is civil in nature, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions.

3/6

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, poonamallee, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten 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 petitioners and 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 deposit a sum of Rs.10 lakhs each to the credit of Crime No.17 of 2026 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Poonamallee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 a.m. for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation.

[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

4/6

[e] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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]. [g] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.

30.04.2026 Sma To

1. Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponnamallee.

2.

The Inspector of Police, Avadi City CCB Police Station, Chennai

3. . The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN .,J.

Sma 30.04.2026 6/6