Thangaraj v. State By The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 22.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL.O.P.No.23059 of 2025 Thangaraj ... Petitioner

Versus

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai - 600 095.

(Crime No.358 of 2025) ... Respondent Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of B.N.S.S., to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in Crime No.358 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Ashokkumar For Respondent :

Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(2), 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.358 of 2025 seeks anticipatory bail.

2.The allegation against the petitioner is that he was ranked as A2 and 1/6

that A1 who was the driver of the defacto complainant's daughter developed a friendly relationship with her and induced her to pay a sum of Rs.29,58,040/- and 23 grams of gold jewels. Subsequently, the defacto complainant's daughter died due to health issues, and only thereafter, the defacto complainant came to know about the financial transactions that had taken place between A1 and his daughter. Hence, he lodged the present complaint.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that already A1, who alleged to have been received the money was arrested and released on bail. He further submitted that the petitioner is the father of A2 and hence, 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 submitted that the investigation is still pending. He further submitted that A1 was arrested and released on bail. In the course of investigation, it revealed that A1 purchased some car and subsequently the car was also taken away by the financiars. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the intervener submitted that the entire family collected the money and cheated the victim. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

2/6

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the submissions made on both sides, the fact that A1 was already arrested and released on bail and the main allegations as against A1, 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 days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee, 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 respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that:

(a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) the petitioner shall report before the 3/6

respondent police, everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of three weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation;

(c) the petitioner shall co-operate with the investigation and shall produce any signatures or other connected documents if, specifically required by the investigating officer.

(d) the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(f) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions 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) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(g) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

22.10.2025 drl To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, 4/6

Poonamallee,

2. The Inspector of Police, T4, Maduravoyal Police Station, Chennai - 600 095.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR, J.

drl 5/6

CRL.O.P.No.23059 of 2025 (2/2) 22.10.2025 6/6