G Purushothaman v. The State Rep By, The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR Crl.O.P.No.33550 of 2025 G.Purushothaman ... Petitioner Vs.

State by The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Adayar, Chennai.

... Respondent PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest in Crime No.Not Known of 2025 on the file of the Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Adayar, Chennai. For Petitioner : Ms.P.Dharani for Mr.C.Prakasam For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Section 318(4) of BNS in Cr.No.Not Known of 2025, on the file of the respondent police. seeks anticipatory bail.

1/6

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, along with three other accused, joined hands and collected a sum of Rs.14.40 lakhs from the de facto complainant on the promise of securing employment. However, they neither secured employment nor returned the money, which led to the registration of the present FIR. Hence, the present case.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no specific overt act is attributed to the petitioner and that he has been falsely implicated only on the ground that he had come forward to assist the family members of the other accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner has repaid a portion of the amount. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and, therefore, prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and submitted that though it was initially stated that a sum of Rs.14.40 lakhs was paid and that certain amounts were subsequently repaid, a sum of Rs.9,35,000/- is still outstanding as on date. However, it was fairly submitted that the investigation has been completed and the final report has already been filed through online mode. On these grounds, the learned Government Advocate opposed the grant of anticipatory bail.

2/6

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

6. Considering the nature of the allegations, the fact that the final report has already been filed by the prosecution, and taking note of the absence of any specific overt act attributed to the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on her appearance within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date on which the order copy made, before the learned XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 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: (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 3/6

one of identify 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;

(d) The petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial; (e) The petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial:

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

15.12.2025 Vv 4/6

To

1. The XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008

2. The Inspector of Police, J-2, Adyar Police Station, Adayar, Chennai.

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104.

5/6

K.RAJASEKAR , J.

Vv Crl.O.P.No.33550 of 2025 15.12.2025 6/6