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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN Pushparathinam S/o.Alphonse, Flat No. 308, 3rd Floor, VGN Temple Town Apartment, Thiruverkadu, Ayapakkam, Tiruvallur District-600077.

..Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

Crime No.17/2025 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of BNSS, praying to enlarge the Petitioner herein on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.17 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent/Complainant herein i.e., the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Kancheepuram District. For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S.Kartik For Respondent(s):

MR.N.PALANIVEL, GOVT.ADVOCATE (CRL.SIDE)

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 318(4) of BNS, 2023, in Crime No.17 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant company was supplying food to the employees engaged by M/s.VENPA Staffing Services India Private Limited under a contractual arrangement entered into between the parties. According to the defacto complainant, payments were regularly made till April 2024 and thereafter a sum of Rs.3,49,99,117/- allegedly became due towards the food supplied during the period from May 2024 to October 2024. It is further alleged that despite repeated demands, the said amount was not paid. Hence the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no criminal antecedents. He is the sole earning member of his family. His wife and school going children are entirely dependent upon the income for their livelihood, education and day to day needs. He is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, intervenor and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent.

6. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the records available. 7.From the submissions made by both sides, it is seen that the entire issue revolves around a money transaction. Even according to the averments made in the FIR, a sum of Rs. 3,49,99,117/- was due to the de facto complainant in furtherance of their business dealings. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an arbitration clause and a contract between the parties, and that the contract is governed by the arbitration clause. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner rightly contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioners on anticipatory bail.

8. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate - I, Kancheepuram, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty 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 and sign before the respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required;

(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.

17-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order AH

To 1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram District.

2.The Judicial Magistrate NO.I, Kancheepuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

AH 17-06-2026