Dharanraj v. State, Represented 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 Dharanraj ..Petitioner(s) Vs State, Represented By The Inspector Of Police S-8, Adambakkam polhice station, Chennai District (Crime No.163/26) ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of BNSS, 2023, praying to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 163 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.K Amirtharaj For Respondent(s):

Mr.S.Balaji Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner who apprehends arrest in the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 319(2), and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 in Crime No. 163 of 2026, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2026 at about 13.00 hours, the de facto complainant was sitting along with a girl in her house. At that time,

the petitioner along with another individual arrived, extorted a sum of Rs.44,000/- and one mobile phone, and subsequently escaped from the scene of occurrence. Hence the case.

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any such offence as alleged by the prosecution. He further submitted that this is the first anticipatory bail petition and no similar petition is pending before any other court. He stated that the petitioner was implicated in this case solely based on the confession statement of the co-accused, and that the co-accused has already been arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that there is no previous case pending against the petitioner and he is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed anticipatory bail for the petitioner. 4.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the case involves a serious offense of extortion. However, he conceded that the petitioner was implicated based on the confession statement of the co-accused, that the co-accused has already been released on bail, and that the petitioner has no previous case history. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 6.Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the nature of offences, the fact that the petitioner was implicated based on the confession statement of the co-accused, the fact that the coaccused has already been released on bail, and also the fact that no previous case is pending against the 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 learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Alandur, 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 daily at 10.00 a.m. for a period of thirty days (30 days) and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

[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 BNSS, 2023.

14-05-2026 SHA 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 No. II, Alandur.

2.The The Inspector Of Police S-8, Adambakkam polhice station, Chennai District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

P.DHANABAL, J.

SHA 14-05-2026