Dhanalakshmi v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR CRL OP NO.29767 of 2025 and Crl M.P.No.232 of 2026 1.Dhanalakshmi W/o.Rajendrababu 2.Balaji Rajendrababu S/o.Rajendrababu 3.Lavanya Srinivasan W/o.Balaji Rajendrababu 4.Radha W/o.Senthil 5.Lavanya D/o.Rajendrababu ... Petitioners Vs The State Rep. By, The Inspector of Police, Pazhavanthangal Police Station, Chennai - 600 061.
(Crime No.334 of 2025) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, pleased to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest by the respondent in Crime No.334 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioners : Mr. R.Jeyvishvak For Intervenor : Mr.M.Mohamed Yasin For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side) ****** 1/5
O R D E R
The petitioners, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4) of BNS r/w 67 of Chits Fund Act in Crime No.334 of 2025 on the file of the respondent Police, seek anticipatory bail.
2.
The allegation against this petitioners is that, the petitioners had involved in running illegal of Chit Funds and had collected huge amount of Rs.37 lakhs from the complainant. Hence, this case. 3.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution; that the petitioners herein are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court, hence sought for anticipatory bail to the petitioners. 4.
The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor raised strong objection for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners by stating that, the petitioners as a single family collected huge amount from him by conducting chit fund and had not repaid the same. He also submitted that 2/5
the petitioners and other accused had involved in similar offences of cheating.
5.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent while opposing the anticipatory bail to the petitioners reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that the investigation of this case is pending.
6.
Considering the submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7.
This Court had earlier granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners with certain conditions. Since, the petitioners failed to comply with the conditions, the bail granted has been dismissed. Similarly, the miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed by this Court by an order dated 07.01.2026. Today, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that he is appearing on behalf of only two petitioners and for other three petitioners, he is not appearing. However, the bail application is pending for all the five petitioners and for other three petitioners, no one is appearing before this Court. Hence, I am of the view that if the two petitioners wants to separate themselves from the other petitioners, the 3/5
learned counsel appearing for this petitioners shall file a separate bail application and in this case, it cannot be separated since this application is filed by all the five petitioners.
8.
Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the two petitioners shall file a separate bail application and accordingly, this criminal original petition stands dismissed and earlier interim bail is also cancelled. Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in Crl.M.P.No.232 of 2026 is ordered.
12.01.2026 ssa To
1. The Inspector of Police, Pazhavanthangal Police Station, Chennai - 600 061.
(Crime No.334 of 2025)
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.
4/5
K. RAJASEKAR, J.
ssa Crl.O.P. No.29767 of 2025 12.01.2026 5/5