Arumugam v. State By,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE K. RAJASEKAR Arumugam ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Chennai. ...Respondent (Crime No.4 of 2016) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Act, 2023, to enlarge the petitioner on bail in event of arrest pending investigation in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police.
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Perinbanathan For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, r/w. 34 of IPC in Crime No.4 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police seek anticipatory bail.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner joined hands with other accused involved in selling the land, which was already sold in 1/5
favour of third parties and thereby cheated the defacto complainant after receiving a sum of Rs.31 lakhs. Hence, a case has been registered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail by this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner are ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and ready to cooperate with the investigation. Hence, he prayed to grant 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 in this case is still pending. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and considering the fact that the case itself was registered prior to the year 2016 and now we are in the year 2026, I am of the view that all the allegations are borne out by the records and co-accused had been granted anticipatory bail, hence, custodial interrogation is not necessary for the purpose of investigation. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 2/5
6. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Alandhur, 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 conditions:
(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 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. 3/5
State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560];
(e) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.
05.02.2026 sma To 1.The Judicial Magistrate-2, Alandhur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Tambaram City, Chennai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. 4/5
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
sma Crl.OP.No.32621 of 2025 05.02.2026 5/5