Sheik Ajmul S S v. The State Rep By The Inspector Of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 21-04-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN and CRL MP No. 24921 of 2025 Sheik Ajmul S S ..Petitioner Vs The State Rep by The Inspector of Police E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station (crime) Mylapore, Chennai.

(Crime No. 284 of 2025) ..Respondent Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of BNSS to enlarge the petitioner on Bail in the event of arrest in the Crime No. 284 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police.

For Petitioner:

M/s. V Manimaran For Respondent:

Mr.P.Dhileepan Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervenor:

Mr.M.G.Martin Manivannan

ORDER

The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the alleged offence under Sections 318(4), 316(2) of BNS, 2023 in Crime No.284 of 2025, on the file of the respondent police seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner under the guise of getting DTCP approval has received Rs.13,50,000/- from the de facto complainant and also fraudulently got the de facto complainant's Hyundai Venue car bearing Registration No.TN10 BH 4367. Hence, this case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence took place on 29.11.2025 and he further submitted that in order to show bonafide, the petitioner would handover the said car with proper acknowledgement to the de facto complainant. He further submitted that he is ready to abide by any stringent condition that may be imposed by this Court and he is ready to co-operate for investigation. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police reiterated the prosecution case and hence, opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also taking into consideration of the occurrence took place on 29.11.2025 and the nature of allegation against the petitioner, this Court is of the firm view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required. Hence, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.

7. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in the event of arrest or on his appearance, within a period of fifteen days from the date on which the order copy is made ready, before the learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai on condition that the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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 learned 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) As agreed, the petitioner is directed to handover the Hyundai Venue car bearing Registration No.TN10 BH 4367 within a period of two weeks from today, before the learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai after giving due notice to the de facto complainant. On such surrender, the learned Magistrate is directed to handover vehicle to the de facto complainant on getting the proper acknowledgement on own bond for Rs.10,000/- from the de facto complainant and with all other conditions. (d) The petitioner shall report before the respondent police daily at 10.30 am for a period of two weeks and thereafter as and when required for interrogation; (e) 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];

(f) If the petitioner thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 of BNS Act.

21-04-2026 SHL To:

1. The 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai

2. The Inspector of Police E-4 Abiramapuram Police Station (crime)

Mylapore, Chennai.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

C.KUMARAPPAN J.

SHL and CRL MP No. 24921 of 2025 21-04-2026