Amsa v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-05-2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Amsa D/o. Veerasamy Naidu, No.58, Veeraragava Mudaliar Street, Tiruchangode, Namakkal District- 637 211.
Petitioner(s) Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police No.58, Veeraragava Mudaliar Street, Tiruchangode, Namakkal.Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.136 of 2026) Respondent(s) PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023 to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of her arrest in Crime No.136 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M Balaji For Respondent(s):
Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2) of BNS, 2023 in connection with the case in Crime No.136 of 2026, seek anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, who is the Executive Officer of Arulmiguu Varadarajaperumal Temple, alleged that during the hundi opening conducted on 17.03.2026, the petitioner, who was present as the Supervising Officer, misappropriated a portion of the hundial money. Based
on the surveillance camera footage, it is alleged that the petitioner has taken a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Hence, the case.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is innocent; that he has been falsely implicated in this case and that the petitioner nearing the age of superannuation. It is the contention of the petitioner that the alleged occurrence took place on 17.03.2026, whereas, the FIR was registered only on 01.04.2026 and with regard to the quantum, there is no mention about the same in the FIR. Hence prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that the petitioner being an Assistant Commissioner of HR&CE Department, was present during the hundi opening and that the allegation is supported by surveillance footage. He has stated that there is no previous case, however, vehemently opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the rival submissions on either side, nature of offence, even according to the prosecution, there is no mention about the quantum of money alleged to have been misappropriated in the FIR and the alleged occurrence said to have took place on 17.03.2026, whereas, FIR was registered
on 01.04.2026 and there is no previous case as against the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner on certain conditions.
7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I at Sankari, Salem District on condition that the petitioner shall execute a 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 conditions that:
[a] the petitioner 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 report before the respondent police every Saturday at 10.30 a.m., until further orders; [c] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.
[d] the petitioner 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 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].
[f] If the accused thereafter abscond, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.
14-05-2026 dhk Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Note: 1. Registry is directed to forthwith upload this order in the official website of this Court.
2. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
To 1.The Inspector of Police No.58, Veeraragava Mudaliar Street, Tiruchangode, Namakkal.Sankari Police Station, Salem District.
(Crime No.136 of 2026) 2.The Judicial Magistrate-I at Sankari, Salem District 3.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court
P.DHANABAL J.
dhk CRL OP No. 12694 of 14-05-2026