G Saraladevi v. The State Represented By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 18.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No. 33802 of 2025 G.Saraladevi

...Petitioner/A1

Vs The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Madipakkam Police Station Chennai.

Crime No. 972 of 2025

...Respondent

COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in the event of her arrest pending investigation in Crime No. 972 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Suresh For Intervener :

Mr.Sharath Chandran For Respondent :

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Criminal Side) ----

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4) & 316(2) of BNSS, 2023 in Crime No.972 of 2025, on the file of the respondent Police, seeks 1/6

anticipatory bail.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.98,00,000/- from the de-facto complainant and failed to return back the money. Hence, the complaint has been registered. 3.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are several transactions taken place between the de-facto complainant and the petitioner herein, they are close relatives and these transactions have been suppressed by the de-facto complainant. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to produce all the details of the transactions taken place between the parties and the petitioner is ready to abide by any condition imposed by this Court and he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. Mr.Sharath Chandran, learned Counsel for the Intervener/De-facto complainant appeared before this Court through Video Conferencing and submitted that the petitioner herein collected money from the de-facto complainant and subsequently, cheated her. He further submitted that huge amount has been siphoned off after collecting the same from the de-facto complainant. Therefore, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the 2/6

petitioner.

5.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent, reiterated the prosecution case and submits that the petitioner joined hands with other accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.98,30,000/- from the de-facto complainant and the petitioner is ranked as A1. He further submits that A1 to A3 had received a sum of Rs.68,20,000/- by way of bank account and the remaining amount of Rs.30,10,000/- paid by way of cash. He further submits that the petitioner has no previous case and investigation is pending and he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

6. I have also gone through the FIR and other connected materials, which reveal that the money was paid to the petitioner and others for the purpose of running a hostel, and further, there were some arrangements with regard to the running of the hostel. It is further alleged that the petitioner has failed to repay the loan amount. Considering the nature of the allegations and the non-repayment of the loan amount, and the arrangements with regard to use of the hostel, I am of the view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

3/6

7.Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, 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: (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 petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m for a period of three weeks and thereafter, as and when required for interrogation;

4/6

[d] On breach of any of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to pass appropriate orders against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the aforementioned conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court themselves 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. 18.12.2025 MSM To

1. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Alandur, Chennai. 2.The Inspector of Police Madipakkam Police Station Chennai.

Crime No. 972 of 2025

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

MSM CRL OP No. 33802 of 2025 18.12.2025.

6/6