← Library
Madras High Court/11840/2026granted

Annapurani Thangapalam v. State Rep. By, The Inspector Of Police,

2026-06-23Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23.06.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Annapurani Thangapalam ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, M6 Manali Police Station, Chennai.

Crime No.449 of 2025.

..Respondent(s) Ananthi .... Intervenor/Defacto complainant [Permitted to intervene vide order of this Court dated 23.06.2026 made in Crl.M.P.No.10587 of 2026 in Crl.O.P.No.11840 of 2026] Prayer:Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K.Bommuraj For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal Side) For Intervenor :

Mr.M.Madhankumar

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in Crime No.449 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with the other accused persons, received 23 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the husband of the de facto complainant and failed to return the same. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing 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.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent police, while opposing the grant of anticipatory bail, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the alleged transactions took place during the year 2024, whereas the FIR came to be registered in the year 2025.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner, along with the other accused, received 23 sovereigns of gold jewellery and a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- from the husband of the defacto complainant and subsequently pledged the said jewellery with a bank. It was further submitted that the husband of the defacto complainant passed away on 22.09.2024. Taking advantage of the demise of the defacto complainant's husband, the petitioner has allegedly failed to return the gold jewellery and the cash amount. According to the intervenor, the said assets are of considerable value and are essential for the livelihood of the de factocomplainant's family Hence, he strongly opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

6. Admittedly, the dispute pertains to the return of gold jewellery and cash. A perusal of the records reveals that the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2024, whereas the FIR came to be registered only in the year 2025. Considering the nature of the allegations, the totality of the circumstances of the case, and having regard to the fact that the petitioner is a woman this Court is of the view that, at this length of time, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, 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(s) 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 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(s) shall report before the respondent police 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(s) in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner(s) 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(s) thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

23.06.2026 (2/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order dpa To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur. 2.The Inspector of Police, M6 Manali Police Station, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

dpa 23.06.2026 (2/2)