Vignesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By Inspector Of Police,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 01/06/2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Vignesh ... Petitioner/Accused No.4 Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by, The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai District.
Crime No.43 of 2025. ... Respondent/Complainant PRAYER :- For Anticipatory Bail in Crime No.43 of 2025 on the file of the Respondent Police.
For Petitioner : Mr. Pratheesh P., Advocate.
For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) For Intervener : Mr.SP.Vijaynivas ORDER : The Court made the following order :- 1/6
The petitioner, who apprehends arrest at the hands of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406 & 420 of IPC, in Crime No.43 of 2025 on the file of the respondent police, seeks anticipatory bail.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the relative of the defacto complainant's family and he has been engaged in real estate business. In such circumstances, he approached the defacto complainant and induced her to invest money in his business by giving a false promise that he would pay the profit amount regularly every month. Believing his words, the defacto complainant and her relatives and her family members invested a sum of Rs,17,00,000/-. Thereafter, he failed to repay the same. Hence, this case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has no way connected in the above said incident. He would further submit that the co-accused was released on anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.385 of 2026 on 09.01.2026 and no previous case is 2/6
pending against the petitioner. Hence, he prays to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is a money dispute between the parties. The petitioner cheated the defacto complainant to the tune of Rs.17,00,000/- by giving a false promise that he would pay the profit amount regularly and the investigation is still pending. Hence, he opposes to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner. He would further submit that the co-accused was released on anticipatory bail by this Court and no previous case is pending against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel for the Intervener would submit that the petitioner along with his family members induced the defacto complainant to invest huge money in his real estate business and promised to share the profit amount. But, without investing the money, he cheated the defacto complainant. Since huge amount of money is involved in this case, he strongly opposed to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
3/6
6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
7. Considering the rival submissions on either side and the nature of offences charged against the petitioner, and even according to the prosecution, there is a business transaction between the parties in respect of invest money in the business and even according to the prosecution, the alleged occurrence was took place on 08.07.2023 and FIR was registered on 30.12.2025 and by this time, material part of the investigation might have been completed and the co-accused was released on anticipatory bail and no previous case is pending against the petitioner, I am inclined to grant 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. 4/6
[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 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 petitioner 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.
01.06.2026 2/2 dss 5/6
P. DHANABAL,J DSS To 1.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Madurai.
2.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Madurai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN CRL OP(MD) No.581 of 2026 Date : 01/06/2026 2/2 6/6