Sureshbabu v. State Rep. By Inspector Of Police,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-07-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
1. SURESH BABU
2. SWETHA Petitioners Vs State Rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.7/2025) Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of their arrest in Crime No.7/2025 pending investigation on the file of the respondent For Petitioners:
Mr.E Kannadasan For Respondent(s):
Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420, 506(i) of IPC in Crime No.7 of 2025, seek anticipatory bail.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused placed a purchased order worth Rs1.75 Crores and paid Rs.1.12 Crores promising to pay the balance amount Rs.58.53 Lakhs. However, the 3 rd respondent evaded payment and threatened the defacto complainant. Hence, the case.
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the allegations are false. He submitted that the intention of the defacto complainant to defame the petitioners' reputation and their goodwill from the public and their customers as if they were cheated him without any transactions, he claimed amount from the petitioners and he wants to extract the money from the petitioners, they have been roped as an accused in this case and that in any case,
custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and sought of anticipatory bail.
4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioners along with other accused placed a purchased order worth Rs.1.75 Crores and paid Rs.1.12 Crores promising to pay the balance amount Rs.58.53 Lakhs. However, the 3 rd respondent evaded payment and threatened the defacto complainant. 5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
6.Considering the nature of dispute and the fact that the custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required for the purpose of investigation, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners subject to the
following conditions:
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 of receipt of a copy of this order, before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), each 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 said Magistrate, 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as
and when required;
[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;
[d] the petitioners 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 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 reported in [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];
[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.
gbi 14-07-2025 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes
To 1.State Rep. by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvannamalai District. (Crime No.7/2025) 2.The J.M.No.I, Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN J.
gbi CRL OP No. 15015 of 14-07-2025