K. Nataraj v. State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.11.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.30658 of 2025 K.Natraj ... Petitioner Vs.

State rep by , Cheyyar Police Station, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District.

... Respondent (Cr.No.359 of 2025) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of his arrest by the respondent police in connection with the case in Cr.No.359 of 2023 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Gopi For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 1/5

318(4) of BNS, 2023 in Cr.No.359 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant used to borrow money from the father of the first accused, one T.N. Kandasamy, who is the paternal uncle of the complainant. During those transactions, the complainant had handed over 88 blank cheques and 100 promissory notes, which were in the possession of A1's father. After his death, instead of returning the cheques and promissory notes to the defacto complainant, the petitioner along with the other accused persons allegedly misused the same. It is further alleged that the accused encashed some cheques, threatened the defacto complainant to repay money, and also initiated legal proceedings against him. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto complainant is a relative of the petitioner and that, considering their relationship, the petitioner had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.9,00,000/- to the defacto complainant to help him develop his business. However, when 2/5

the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured. He further submitted that the co-accused have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.10.2025 in Crl.O.P.No.28073 of 2025. Hence, he prays that anticipatory bail be granted to the petitioner.

4. It is reported by the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondent police that the petitioner, along with the other accused, misused the blank cheques and promissory notes belonging to the defacto complainant and initiated false proceedings to extort money. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to recover the documents. Hence, he opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the nature of the offence and the fact that the coaccused has already been enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions. 3/5

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 (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District 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 learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: (a) If the petitioner fails to surrender before the concerned 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 petitioner shall report before the respondent police everyday at 10.30 a.m., for a period of two weeks and thereafter, as and when required for 4/5

interrogation;

(d) On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner 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 accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

19.11.2025 Vv To

1. The Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District

2. The Cheyyar Police Station, Cheyyar Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/5

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.30658 of 2025 19.11.2025 6/5