Balasridharan @ Balasridhar v. State Rep.By, The Inspector Of Police,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19-01-2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR CRL OP No.35694 of 2025

1. Balasridharan @ Balasridhar

2. Jagadeeswaran @ Jegadeesan [Break] Petitioner(s) Vs State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District. Cr.No.174 of 2025.

Respondent(s) PRAYER Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying to enlarge the petitioners / Accused 12,13 on Anticipatory Bail in the event of his arrest in Cr.No.174/2025 or on his appearance before the concern court on the file of the Respondent / Complainant.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.S Siva Kumar For Respondent(s):

Ms.J.R.Archana Government Advocate Crl.side

ORDER

The petitioners, who apprehend arrest by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 338, 340(2),

61(2), 111(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 43, 43A, 66C, 66D Information Technology Act, 2000, in Crime No.174 of 2025 seek anticipatory bail. 2.The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners, who are ranked as A12 and A13, alleged to have assisted the other accused in abducting the defacto complainant earlier and in this regard a separate case has been registered. Further it is alleged that the petitioners are the hirelings of the other accused and hence they have been added as an accused in this case. 3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the major allegation in this case is that A1 to A8 involved in online trading account of dead persons and collected huge amounts to an extent of more than Rs.2 Crores.

However, the petitioners herein not involved in any of the trading activities and it is alleged that they assisted the other persons to attack the defacto complainant in this case and prays to grant anticipatory bail. 4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent police reported that regarding the abduction of the defacto complainant in this case separate case has been registered before the Adhiveerapattu police station, Cuddalore District and in this case the petitioners are not involved in trading activities. He further submitted that the investigation in this case is pending. Hence, he opposed for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.

5.I have also gone through the records and other connected materials.

6. It is seen that already the petitioners were granted bail in the connected case registered by the Adhiveerapattu police station, Cuddalore District and it is also stated that the petitioners are not directly involved in online trading which is the major allegations levelled in this case, therefore, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners, subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of arrest or on their appearance, within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order before the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Panruti, Cuddalore District, on condition that the petitioners shall execute a separate bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only), each with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the respondent police or the police officer who intends to arrest or to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate concerned and on further condition that: (a) the sureties shall affix their photographs and left thumb impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;

(b) 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;

(c) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;

(d) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

(e) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/ Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]; and;

(f) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of B.N.S.

19-01-2026 gbi Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.State Rep.by, The Inspector of Police, Muthandikuppam Police Station, Cuddalore District. Cr.No.174 of 2025.

2.The Judicial Magistrate-I, Panruti, Cuddalore District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

K.RAJASEKAR J.

gbi CRL OP No. 35694 of 19-01-2026