Jayanthi v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Cbcid - South
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 09/01/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY Jayanthi ... Petitioner Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by Inspector of Police, CBCID - South Police Station, Thanjavur District.
(In Crime No.01/2024).
... Respondent PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.01/2024 on the file of the respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Ananda Kumar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.A.S.Abul Kalaam Azad, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
ORDER
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the 1/4
respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC, in Crime No.01 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's family ration card was misused by third parties for the execution of sureties in various courts. In the year 2012, the police officers from Delhi enquired with the defacto complainant that she gave surety before the Court in a criminal case and similarly, the police officers from Kamuthi and Coimbatore also made enquiries with her and she later received a notice from the learned Judicial Magistrate -III, Thanjavur, for surety action. Hence, the complaint.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Quresha Begum approached the petitioner stating that she worked in the Court as Advocate Clerk and she enticed the petitioner for execution of sureties and paid her some wages. He further submitted the petitioner is an innocent person and ahe has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the petitioner is willing to abide by any conditions 2/4
that may be imposed by this Court. Hence, he seeks anticipatory bail for the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner misused the ration card and other documents of the defacto complainant for execution of sureties. He further submitted that a summon has been issued by the respondent directing the petitioner to appear for enquiry and the investigation is yet to be completed. Hence, he opposed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the petitioner has been involved in a very serious offence and the investigation is at an initial stage, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 09.01.2026 CP 3/4
S.SRIMATHY,J CP TO 1.The Inspector of Police, CBCID - South Police Station, Thanjavur District.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.535 of 2026 Date : 09/01/2026 4/4