Ragavendra Guptha v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-07-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.Ragavendra Guptha 2.Vaishnavi 3.Umarani Badrinath 4.Badrinath petitioners Vs The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Dharmapuri (Cr.No.4 of 2025).

Respondent(s) Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to enlarge the petitioners / Accused on bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.4 of 2025 pending on the file of the respondent police.

For petitioners(s): Mr. N.U.Pressanna For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/8

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 420 and 506(1) of IPC in Crime No.4 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police, seek anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is one Velavan, given a complaint on 25.02.2025 before the Inspector General of Police same was forwarded to the respondent police on 07.05.2025 is that defacto complainant has been acquainted with the 1st petitioner and have been on friendly terms professionally since 2020. Thereafter, both of has been making money transactions for business investments. Based on their friendship the defacto complainant given a sum of Rs.90 lakhs to the 1st petitioner for investing money to their business and also arrange the hand loan upto Rs.50 lakhs for third party's and gave a guarantee on behalf of the 1st petitioner. The 3rd petitioner also given the surety documents for the entire loan amount borrowed by the 1st petitioner to the defacto complainant. Supporting the same the 2nd and 3rd petitioner also given the property documents and pro-notes in favour of the defacto complainant. After that only he realized that the documents are fabricated 2/8

and they got the loan from several persons using the same property documents. The defacto complainant asked to return his money at the time petitioners are threatened the defacto complainant if he asked the money they will commit suicide. Therefore, the defacto complainant given a complaint for return back his amount to the tune of Rs.1.40 Crores. Hence, the complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that the petitioners is ready and willing to furnish substantial sureties for their due release and abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court and therefore, he prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the the petitioners borrowed money from the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.1.40 Crores and failed to repay the same. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 3/8

5.This Court, on perusal of records, finds that there is a money dispute between the 1st petitioner and the defacto complainant. Therefore, this Court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the 1st petitioner may be required and is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the 1st petitioner. Hence, as regards the first petitioner, this petition is dismissed.

6.

However, as regards the petitioners 2 to 4 are only family members of the 1st petitioner, and hence, custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners 2 to 4 subject to other following conditions. 7.

Accordingly, the petitioners 2 to 4 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 learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Dharmapuri on condition that the petitioners 2 to 4 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 4/8

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 petitioners 2 to 4 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 petitioners 2 to 4 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 petitioners 2 to 4 shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.

[d] the petitioners 2 to 4 shall not abscond 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 2 to 4 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 2 to 4 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].

5/8

[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 14.07.2025 gbi 6/8

To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, District Police Office, Dharmapuri 2.The Judicial Magistrate-II, Dharmapuri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

7/8

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J., gbi 14.07.2025 8/8