Ravichandran v. State By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.04.2026

CORAM

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

State by the Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Villupuram.

Crime No.3/2017 ... 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 relating to the case in C.C.No.690 of 2025 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munusamy 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, 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC in Crime No.3 of 2017, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, was employed with SIS Prosegur Holding Private Limited (SISCO) for the purpose of replenishing cash in ATM machines located in and 1/6

around Villupuram, Gingee, Tindivanam and Tirukoilur. It is alleged that, on the date of occurrence, based on certain information, the complainant conducted an inspection and found that the accused had not deposited the cash in the ATM machines, but had instead misappropriated the same for their personal use. The total amount alleged to have been misappropriated is Rs.51,34,900/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is arrayed as A4 in this case and that he has been implicated as an accused solely on the basis of the alleged confession. He would further submit 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the case of the prosecution and submitted that the petitioner, along with other accused persons, had misappropriated a sum of Rs.51,34,900/- under the guise of replenishing cash in ATM machines, without actually doing so. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the 2/6

petitioner.

5. Upon considering the factual matrix, it is seen that the investigation has been completed and an absconding charge sheet has been filed. The First Information Report in this case came to be registered on 09.02.2017. Taking into account the fact that the FIR is of the year 2017, that the charge sheet has already been filed, and that some of the co-accused have been granted bail, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, 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, Gingee 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 3/6

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 learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee 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.

24.04.2026 kv 4/6

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Gingee.

2.The Inspector of Police, DCB Police Station, Villupuram.

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

C.KUMARAPPAN.J.

kv 24.04.2026 6/6