Natchimuthu v. The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 09.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.24838 of 2025 Natchimuthu ... Petitioner Vs.

State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II Chennai ... Respondent (Cr.No.11 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 his arrest in Cr.No.11 of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police,Economic Offence Wing-II,Chennai For Petitioners : Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondent : Mr.S.Udayakumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 409, 480, 420, 468, 474 and 217 of IPC in Crime No. 11 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The allegation against this petitioner is that while he serving as an Investigating Officer in Crime No.3 of 2008, he collected a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- from the 3rd accused and failed to deposit the same to the Crime No.3 of 2008. It is alleged that the petitioner colluded with two other persons namely Karnan and Jeyakumar, fabricated the records and misappropriated the amount. Subsequently, on the basis of departmental enquiry, the present complaint has been lodged against this petitioner. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that he has not committed the misappropriation of the alleged amount. He also submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondent police, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioner has swindled the huge amount by fabricating the records. He 2/6

further submits that investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsels on either side, considering the fact that the transaction was also took place in the year 2008 and the petitioner was serving as Investigating Officer in Crime No.3 of 2008, this Court is of the view that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner at this point of time is not necessary. However, the respondent police shall investigate the matter and file a final report before the concerned Court. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation.

6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner with 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 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 and on further condition that: 3/6

(a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned Magistrate, within a period of fifteen 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 the identity proofs to ensure their identity;

[c] the petitioners shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for 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 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];

4/6

[e] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S. 09.10.2025 nr To

1. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Economic Offence Wing-II Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

nr 5/6

Crl.O.P.No.24838 of 2025 09.10.2025 6/6