Murugan v. State Represented By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 10-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Murugan ..Petitioner Vs State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.

Crime No.134 of 2026 ..Respondent 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 No.134 of 2026 pending investigation on the file the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

Mr.M.N.Balakrishnan For Respondent:

Mr.N.Palanivel Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 61(2), 318(2), 318(3) and 318(4) of B.N.S. 2023 in Crime No.134 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with other accused, received a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- from the defacto complainant

towards the purchase of the property by entering into a sale agreement. Thereafter, when the defacto complainant attempted to proceed with the execution of the sale deed, the accused persons allegedly sold the property to a third party. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a broker and that he gave the entire amount of money to A-2. It is further submitted that when the complainant requested to terminate the agreement, A-2 issued cheques. When these cheques were presented, they bounced. Hence, a statutory notice dated 03.03.2026 was issued to the petitioner and A-2. The complainant, instead of launching a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, has camouflaged the case as a criminal offence. Hence, he prays for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner has three previous cases. He further submits that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side.

6. Considering nature of allegations and the fact that the petitioner has three previous cases and as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that if the petitioner is enlarged on anticipatory bail, he may abscond and commit similar offences in future as well. Hence, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

7. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. 10-06-2026 NSL To

1. The Inspector of Police, Udumalpet Police Station, Tiruppur District.

2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.

3. The Judicial Magistrate Court I, Udumalpet.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

NSL 10-06-2026