Rabiulla v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 14-05-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Rabiulla S/o. Abdul Jaleel, No.A1, Pongalikonar Street, Velandipalayam, Coimbatore North, Coimbatore District.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

(Crime No.193 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer:

Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime N0.193 of 2026 pending investigation on the file the respondent police and pass such other orders.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.N.Arun Kumar For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji, GA (Crl.side)

ORDER

The petitioner / Accused, who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Section 465 & 420 of IPC in connection with the Cr. No.193 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who is a practicing advocate was happened to meet the accused, who is working as a Tax Collector, with regard to a case. Subsequently, the accused promised the complainant to get a job as tax collector, for which a sum of Rs.4,26,500/- is required. Pursuant to the same, the complainant paid the said amount to the petitioner on various dates from 14.07.2023 to 28.11.2023. But till date, the petitioner neither availed a job nor returned the money. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner received the aforesaid amount for medical treatment of his wife and out of the total amount, he returned a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Apart from that, the petitioner is also paying a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month from September, 2023 towards principle with interest till March, 2026, which comes around a sum of Rs.5,60,000/-. In spite of repayment of the aforesaid amount, the complainant was charging exorbitant interest. Further, he would submit that there was money dispute, which is purely civil in nature. However, the same was camouflaged by complainant as a criminal offence. Hence, the petitioner may be released on anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police would submit that based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, they registered the case in Cr. No.193 of 2026 for the

offence under Section 465 & 420 of IPC and the case is under investigation. Hence, he strongly 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, considering the nature of offences, considering the fact that though the alleged transaction was occurred in the year 2023, the FIR was registered only on 28.04.2026 and even according to the petitioner, there is only a money dispute between the parties and a part of the amount was also already returned to the complainant and considering the fact that there is no previous case pending against this petitioner, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner subject to the following 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 on which the order copy made ready, before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Coimbatore 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 learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

[a] the petitioner shall report before the respondent police every Saturday for a period of 4 weeks and thereafter as and when required;

[b] the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; [c] the petitioner shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;

[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 petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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.2023.

14-05-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order nsa/rst 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 the official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.

To:

1.The Judicial Magistrate-IV, Coimbatore 2.The Inspector of Police, Saravanampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

P.DHANABAL J.

nsa/rst 14-05-2026