Mohan v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police, Ccb - Ii

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 07.04.2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL S.Mohan ...Petitioner/Accused Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (CCB-II), Madurai City, Madurai.

(Crime No.10 of 2026) ...Respondent/Complainant (Crime Number and sections are amended as per the ordre of this Court dated 27.03.2026 in Crl.M.P. (MD).No.3220 of 2026) For Petitioner :Mr.G.Karuppasamypandian Advocate.

For Respondent :Mr.P.Kottai Chamy Government Advocate (Crl. Side) For Intervener :Mr.T.Balakrishnan PETITION FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL Under Sec.482 of BNSS PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Cr.No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police.

1/8

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner/Accused, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Section 318(4) of BNS, in Crime No.10 of 2026 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant paid a sum of Rs.26 lakhs under the guise of arranging a loan and thereafter, the petitioner neither sanctioned the loan amount nor repaid the amount. Hence, the case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and he is no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the 2/8

petitioner only gave a money to the defacto complainant and the petitioner already filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.393 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Thirumangalam. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the intervener would submit that the petitioner received a sum of Rs.26 lakhs under the guise of arranging loan and thereafter, he neither repaid the loan amount nor paid the amount, which was given by the defacto complainant. Hence, he opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that there was a money dispute pending between the parties. He would further submit that 3/8

the investigation is still pending and the offences are grave in nature. He fairly submits that the petitioner has no previous cases. However, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

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

7.Considering the rival submissions on either side and nature of offence and considering the fact that there was a money dispute pending between the parties and the alleged occurrence took place in the year 2024, however the date of FIR is on 31.01.2026 and hence, there is a delay in filing FIR and no previous case is pending against the petitioner and the petitioner already filed a suit for recovery of money in O.S.No.393 of 2025 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Thirumangalam, and hence, I am inclined to grant 4/8

anticipatory bail to the petitioner, subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the respondent Police daily at 10.30 a.m., until further orders.

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offences of similar nature.

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.

[e] the petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during 5/8

investigation or trial.

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioner 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].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 B.N.S.

(P D B J) 07.04.2026 vsg 2/2 6/8

To 1.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai. 2.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (CCB-II), Madurai City, Madurai.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

P. DHANABAL, J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No. 558 of 2026 Date : 07.04.2026 2/2 8/8