K.Govindaraj v. The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.10.2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.22032 of 2025 and Crl.M.P.No.16707 of 2025 K.Govindaraj ... Petitioner/Accused Vs.

State rep by The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.331 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of the arrest in connection with Cr.No.331 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.J.Bharathiraja For Intervenor :

Mr.N.Desinghu For Respondent :

Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) 1/6

O R D E R

The petitioner herein, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the alleged offence under Sections 296(b), 351(3) and 318(4) of BNS Act, 2023 in Crime No.331 of 2025, seeks anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against this petitioner is that this petitioner for the purpose of developing the business received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant and subsequently, failed to repay the amount. When the defacto complainant demanded the amount, the petitioner threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint. 3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an innocent person and a false case has been lodged against the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the petitioner has received a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from the defacto complainant for the 2/6

purpose of developing the business and so far no amount is repaid and when the amount was demanded, the petitioner threatened the defacto complainant with dire consequences. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the notice under Section 35 of BNS Act, was issued to the petitioner and the investigation is not completed. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the allegation that the petitioner has borrowed the amount and failed to repay the same, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this regard. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with certain conditions.

3/6

8. 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 - I, Krishnagiri, on condition that the petitioner 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, failing which, the petition for anticipatory bail shall stand dismissed and on further condition that:

[a] 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[b] the petitioner 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 the interrogation;

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions 4/6

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)13 SCC 283];

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 9.Consequently, connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 14.10.2025 smv To 1.The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

2.Judicial Magistrate - I, Krishnagiri.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

smv Crl.O.P.No.22032 of 2025 14.10.2025 6/6