← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP/13183/2026granted

Paul Venkatesh v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

2026-06-22Honourable Mr.Justice C.Kumarappan6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Paul Venkatesh.A ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State rep by, The Inspector of Police Sathangadu Police Station, Thiruvallur District. (Crime No.112 of 2026) ..Respondent(s) Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS Act, 2023, pleased to enlarge the Petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No.112 of 2026 on the file of the respondent Police. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Marshall S For Respondent(s):

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Criminal side) Mr.D.Kaviyarasu for Intervenor

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offences under Sections 316 (2) and 318 (4) of the BNS, 2023, in Crime No.112 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto-complainant, who is a mason contractor by profession, had engaged the petitioner for carrying out carpentry and woodwork from the year 2021 onwards and the petitioner continued the said work till December 2024. It is alleged that the petitioner cheated the defacto-complainant to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- for the supply of

Teak Wood. However, the petitioner failed to supply original Teak Wood instead he supplied duplicate wood. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Further, he submitted that the First Information Report came to be registered on 11.04.2026 and that the petitioner is seventy years old. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.Mr.D.Kaviyarasu, the learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner cheated the defacto-complainant to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- for the supply of Teak Wood. However, the petitioner failed to supply original Teak Wood instead he supplied duplicate wood.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Considering the totality of the circumstances, the fact that the First Information Report was registered on 11.04.2026 and the nature of the offence alleged against the petitioner, and that the petitioner is aged about seventy years, this Court is of the firm view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is

not necessary. 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 his appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotiyur, on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 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 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 in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

22-06-2026 ep

To 1.The Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvotiyur.

2.The Inspector of Police Sathangadu Police Station, Thiruvallur District.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

EP 22-06-2026 (1/2)