Thiyagaraj v. State Rep.By, Inspector Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.33466 of 2025 Thiyagaraj C ... Petitioner Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai ... Respondent (Cr.No.116 of 2024) PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioners on bail in the event of arrest by the respondent police in the case pending investigation in Crime No.116 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police. For Petitioner : Mrs.C.Sangamithirai For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 406, 420, 120B and 34 IPC and Section 5 of TNPID Act in Cr.No.116 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
1/7
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is arrayed as A5 in this case and is one of the Directors of the Chit Fund Company, which allegedly collected chit fund amounts from the defacto complainant and other victims to the tune of Rs.2,34,83,125/- and thereafter failed to return the deposited amounts, which led to the registration of the FIR. Hence, the present case.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is only a non-executive Director. Though it is stated in the FIR that the petitioner had participated in the affairs of the finance company, he has not derived any benefit from the alleged transactions. He further submitted that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that A7 in this case was enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2025 and the petitioner is ready to abide by any conditions that may be imposed by this Court and is also willing to furnish sufficient solvent sureties for his release. Hence, he prayed for grant of 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 coaccused A1 and A2 were already arrested in this case and that, in the 2/7
statement of A2, it was revealed that the petitioner is also one of the Directors of the Chit Fund Company. He further submitted that the investigation is still pending. Hence, he vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.
5. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the FIR and the statement recorded from A1, which reveal that the petitioner did not have any role in the management of the chit fund company. It is also stated that the amounts were collected by A1 to A4 and that the money was siphoned off by them and the co-accused was enlarged on anticipatory bail, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.
6. 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 Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, 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 learned Magistrate concerned, and on further condition that: 3/7
(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 on all working days 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. 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.
17.12.2025 Vv 4/7
To
1. The Metropolitan Magistrate for the Exclusive Trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai , Chennai
2. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Chennai 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.
5/7
K.RAJASEKAR , J.
Vv Crl.O.P.No.33466 of 2025 17.12.2025 6/7