Kuppulakshmi v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 23-06-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

1. Kuppulakshmi w/o. Kailasam, 36B, Gandhiji Street, Perumapalayam, Modakurichi, Erode -638104.

2. Saranyadevi 36B, Gandhiji Street,Perumapalayam, Modakurichi, Erode -638104

3. Sankar Prakash 36B, Gandhiji Street, Perumapalayam,Modakurichi, Erode -638104.

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

Crime No.06 of 2026 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to grant an Anticipatory bail to the petitioners in the event of their arrest or on their appearance before any court in connection with the case in Crime NO.06 of 2026 pending investigation on the file of the Respondent Police herein and thus render justice. For Petitioner(s):

MR. C. Ramaraj For Respondent(s):

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

ORDER

The petitioners apprehend arrest for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 61(2), 318(4) and 336(3) of BNS, in Crime No.06 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the accused induced the defacto complainant to part with Rs.19,70,000/-, the title deeds of her house and 9 sovereigns of gold on the promise of marriage, but neither fulfilled the promise not returned the same. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the defacto complainant and they have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that they are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to co-operate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the petitioner, by promising marriage, induced the defacto complainant to part with Rs.19,70,000/-, the title deeds of her house and 9 sovereigns of gold, and thereafter failed to honour the promise or return the same. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.I have given my anxious consideration to either side submissions.

6. Upon a perusal of the FIR, though the allegations prima facie disclose the offence of cheating, the dispute appears to arise out of a monetary transaction between the petitioners and the defacto complainant. Considering that the first and second petitioners are women, and that the third petitioner is the son of the first petitioner against whom no specific overt act is attributed, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. 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 No.II, Erode, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate 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 petitioners 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 petitioners shall report before the respondent Police, daily at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter 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 petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners 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.

23-06-2026 DRL To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Erode.

2.The Inspector of Police District Crime Branch, Erode District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

C.KUMARAPPAN, J.

DRL 23-06-2026